LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. | 



Shelf 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. ft 



( 



PRINCIPLES 

OF 

CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE 

ILLUSTRATED. 



Printed by John Moir, 
Edinburgh, 1818. 



PRINCIPLES 

OF 

CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE 

ILLUSTRATED, 

by an EXAMINATION of arguments 
subversive of NATURAL, THEOLOGY and the 
INTERNAL EVIDENCE of CHRISTIANITY, 

advanced by DR T. CHALMERS, in his 

K EVIDENCE AND AUTHORITY OF THE 
" CHRISTIAN REVELATION." 





By DUNCAN MEARNS, D. D. 

PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN KING'S COLLEGE AND 
UNIVERSITY, ABEEJDEEN. 



Tod y»(> xa) yivo; Itr/Aiv, o V 'kfftos u.v$ outpour t 

Aratus. 

Operibus praescripsit Deus antequam Uteris : viribus praedicavit antequam 
Tocibus. Praemisit tibi naturam magistram, submissurus et T -ophetiam, qu * 
facHlm credas Prophetiae, dicipulus naturs : quo statim admittas, quod ubique 
tm widens* Tertullian, 



EDINBURGH : . 

i-, 

"PRINTED FOR A. BROWN CO. ABERDEEN; 
PETER HILL & CO. AND W. BLACKWOOD, EDINBURGH : 
W. TURNBULL, GLASGOW ; AND LONGMAN, HURST, REES, 
ORME, S" BROWN, LONDON* 

1818. 



TO THE VERY REVEREND, 

THE SYNOD OF ABERDEEN, 

THE FOLLOWING TREATISE, WHICH IN ANOTHER 
AND LESS EXTENDED FORM WAS PREACHED 
BEFORE THEM, AND IS NOW PUBLISHED AT 
THEIR DESIRE, — IS, WITH SINCERE RESPECT 
AND ATTACHMENT, INSCRIBED BY 

THEIR OBLIGED AND FAITHFUL 

SERVANT AND BROTHER, 



D. M. 



CONTENTS. 



Page- 



preface 9 

Chap. L Principles assumed by Dr C. as the basis of his 
scheme of Evidence — Consequences which follow from 

the adoption of these principles 21 

Sect. 1. The Conclusions of Natural Theology, and 
the Internal Evidence of Christianity, avowedly 

destroyed ib. 

Sect. 2. The Evidences of Miracles and Testimo- 
ny indirectly subverted 51 

Chap. II. The Deistical objections, which Dr C. aims at 
removing by a new and summary method, — still remain 
to be discussed and repelled in the manner he deems 
superfluous 80 

Chap. III. Of the affinity subsisting between the Principles 
of Christian Evidence, External and Internal, and 
those of the Inductive Philosophy 99 



Chap. IV. Examination of Dr C.'s representations of the 
nature of those Evidences, by means of which the con- 
version of Pagan nations was effected in the first ages 
of Christianity. — The Internal Evidence employed by 
the Author of Chiistianity, and his early followers 1-14 



Conclusion 



1S2 



PREFACE. 



In the following Essay, it is not the author's 
object to exhibit in detail the Evidences on 
which the truth of Christianity rests ; — nor to 
review the whole of the Treatise on the c E- 
€ vidence and Authority of the Christian Reve- 
6 lation/ or even those parts of it which, to 
some readers, may appear the most striking 
and important.— The greater part of Br Chal- 
mers's work is devoted to the exhibition of 
the external evidence. But he has not mere- 
ly displayed this branch of proof as the most 
important and convincing : he has asserted its 
c exclusive* legitimacy; and has represented 
as fallacious the principles on which the con- 

B 



X 



PREFACE. 



elusions of natural theology, and the internal 
evidences of Christianity are founded. As 
all attempts to subvert those principles affect 
the externa], no less essentially (though less 
directly) than the internal evidence, it seems 
an object of s .me consequence to expose the 
fallacy of D; C.'s reasonings on this part of his 
subject ; ami to establish the philosophical, as 
well as scriptural character, of principles 
which form the ultimate foundation on which 
the whole of Christian evidence rests. — This, 
accordingly, is the aim ol trie following Trea- 
tise. 

The ablest advocates of Christianity have 
been far from considering the different spe- 
cies of evidence, by which its claims to recep- 
tion arc supported, as traversing or obstruct- 
ing one another : Nor, although they have 
estimated differently the importance of parti- 
cular proofs, nave anj of them conceived 
it necessary or expedient to remove one 
great class, in order to give full effect to 
another. Ou the contrary, ali the different 
sorts of Christian evidences have been consi- 



PREFACE. 



clered as possessing peculiar value \ as acting 
in unison-, and giving force to the general ar- 
gument ; and great weight has always been 
laid on the combined effect of the whole. 
Those only, indeed, who taka a full and com- 
prehensive yiew of the different branches of 
evidence, and who peiceive their connection, 
and the support they give to each other, can 
have any just idea of the strength of che whole 
proof. It is this connection between the dif- 
ferent parts which forms the strength of every 
circumstantial proof, and which constitutes 
its great security against minor o- jections. 
Bacon has justly observed, that 6 the harmo- 
' ny of a science s ^porting each part the 
1 other, is, and ought to be, the true and brief 
i confutation and suppression of all the smal- 
' lev sort of objections. But, on the other 
6 hand, if you take out every axiom, as the 
' sticks of a faggot, one by one, you may quar- 
6 rel with them, and bend them, and break 
' them at your pleasure.' 

But as full and comprehensive views of the 

general effect of Christian evidence, and of 
e 2 



xii 



PREFACE. 



the mutual bearings and dependencies of the 
several parts, can be considered as attainable 
by those only, who with more than ordinary 
powers of mind have devoted considerable 
time and attention to the subject; — it is not to 
be wondered at, that of those who stand for- 
ward in defence of Christianity, there should 
be some who give such views of its characters 
and its evidences, as tend rather to weaken 
than to strengthen its cause. Beset as sound 
religion always has been with enemies on all 
sides, it is difficult while the attention is en- 
gaged in defending one point, or engrossed 
by the assaults of one foe, to conduct the de- 
fence in so vigilant a manner, as to leave no 
pass open to the entrance of an enemy in some 
other quarter. Hence several modern advo- 
cates of Christianity, or of its peculiar doc- 
trines, having obviously had their attention 
fixed upon the erroneous reasonings and in- 
sidious devices of those, who with singular ab- 
surdity appropriate to themselves the title of 
€ rational Christians,' have unwarily employed 
expressions and arguments which give coun- 



PREFACE. 



xiii 



tenance to errors of an opposite nature ; — and 
have thus laid religion open to the attacks of 
infidels, whose representations of Christiani- 
ty, as having no foundation in reason, but in 
some inexplicable principle which they style 
faith, correspond very nearly with the senti- 
ments held by religious enthusiasts in all ages. 
It is highly necessary to check the wild and 
extravagant excursions of reason into regions 
beyond its narrow sphere ; but the exercise 
of that faculty within its proper province, is 
indispensable to revelation. It cannot be 
necessary to vilify and prostrate reason, or 
deny the authority of any of those laws which 
regulate human belief; in order to defend re- 
velation against the attacks of those who ei- 
ther question its general credibility, or deny 
its higher truths. Any such mode of defence 
is indeed a virtual abandonment of all the e- 
vidences, by which a revelation can be proved 
to be divine. For unless the existence of 
those laws is acknowledged ; and the compe- 
tency of reason, under their authority, to draw 
conclusions regarding the existence and cha~ 



xiv 



PREFACE. 



racter of efficient causes, is recognised, it u 
impossible to shew that the truths' of revela- 
tion possess any claim to belief; nay, it is 
impossible to account for their being intelli- 
gible to human beings. While it therefore 
seems highly necessary to employ all proper 
e weapons ' for 1 casting down* those high 
4 reasonings which thus exalt themselves, 
' and for bringing them into captivity to the 
c obedience of Christ/ it by no means follows 
that there is either necessity or propriety in 
bringing forward to this warfare weapons 
which are unsound in themselves, and the em- 
ployment of which throws open the fortress 
of Christianity to attacks from opposite quar- 
ters. Foes of the description alluded to, are 
not indeed likely to attain any degree of suc- 
cess, until the advocates of Christianity, by 
their ill judged expositions of its evidences 
and doctrines, shall have destroyed that cha- 
racter of * a reasonable service,' which it was- 
its glory at its fir^t promulgation to bear ; and 
by separating between faith and reason, and 
thus opening a way for the influx ot fanatic 



PREFACE. 



cism, shall have undermined the foundations 
on which true religion rests. 

There appears at times, on the part of advo- 
cates of revelation, a jealousy of natural reli- 
gion, for which it seems difficult to account. 
The primary truths of religion, which human 
reason proceeding upon the evidences which 
nature furnishes, is enabled to establish, are 
doubtless sublime and important. Yet how 
narrow is the sphere of religious science 
within which unaided reason may legitimately 
expatiate, compared with that wide field which 
revelation opens to human view; and how un- 
certain must for ever have been the condition 
of man, unsupported by those assurances 
which revelation affords. It seems impossible 
that any man who possesses sound and com>- 
prehensive views of the extent, the harmony, 
and excellence of the Christian system, should 
ever entertain a thought of degrading or de- 
preciating natural religion, in craer that the 
vast superiority of Christianity may be appa- 
rent. It is true, that systems not more danger- 
ous in character than false in principle, have 



xvi 



PREFACE. 



at times been grafted upon those primary 
truths which reason establishes, and have u- 
surped the name of natural religion. But 
reason, and the legitimate conclusions of a 
theological and moral nature which she esta- 
blishes, cannot in justice be considered as re- 
sponsible for the truth or tendency of systems, 
which are the creation of extravagant fancy, 
or philosophical subtlety. The reprehension 
fairly due to speculative systems ot this na- 
ture, cannot justly be directed against reason 
or natural religion ; any more than the censure 
so well merited by those mystical systems 
which falsely claim the title of Christianity, 
can be justly levelled against Christianity it- 
self. — Still less accountable, perhaps, is this 
anxiety to depreciate natural religion, when 
it is considered how intimately interwoven 
are the principles of evidence on which it 
rests, with those on which the credibility of re- 
velation depends. Such anxiety is consistent 
enough with the opinion, that Christian truth 
is to be evidenced solely by mental feelings ; 
but it is irreconcilable with the sentiments of 



PREFACE. 



xvii 



any who attach importance to the evidences, 
external or internal, by which Christianity is 
recommended to the faith of rational beings. 

Attempts have been sometimes made by 
writers on the Evidences of Christianity, to 
bring the question of its truth into narrow 
compass : and according- as their peculiar 
views have led them to rest more or less weight 
on the different facts and arguments compos- 
ing that evidence, they have turned their at- 
tention particularly to those proofs which 
seemed to their minds the clearest or most 
conclusive, and have left the question to be 
decided on these grounds. Arguments are not 
wanting in support of this method of simpli- 
fying and restricting the evidence of Chris- 
tianity, but they are much more specious than 
solid Simplicity is of the essence of a mathe- 
matical demonstration ; and the more simple 
it can be rendered, the more appropriate and 
beautiful it becomes. But the proof on which 
the truth of Christianity rests is in its nature 
complex ; and it cannot be simplified so as to 
give it any resemblance to mathematical evi- 



xviii 



PREFACE. 



dence, without breaking it in pieces. Still it 
may be maintained, that one piece may be ad* 
vantageously selected from the others, and its 
strength and beauty displayed ; leaving the 
spectator to examine the others at his leisure. 
And if the part thus selected be not repre- 
sented as the whole if the operation of dis- 
junction be carefully performed, so as that the 
other parts 'suffer no injury in consequence ; — 
the process may perhaps be harmless, if not 
beneficial. But if the piece thus selected for 
producing effect, be represented as the only 
sound or useful part 3 if the others, on which 
perhaps the faith of many Christians may in 
some degree rest, are stigmatized as not mere- 
ly unsound but injurious; — it seems impossible 
to contemplate without alarm the consequen- 
ces which may ensue. Dr Chalmers well ob- 
serves, that c there is such a thing as the love 
i of -simplicity and system, — a prejudice of the 
1 understanding, which disposes it to include 
* all the phenomena of nature under a few 
c sweeping generalities,-— an indolence which 

6 loves to reoose on the beauties of a theory, 
* v w - 



PREFACE. 



xix 



■ rather than encounter the fatiguing detail of 
{ its evidence.' .These are weaknesses of 
the mind, which every one who would judi- 
ciously display, or fairly estimate the Eviden- 
ces of Christianity, ought undoubtedly to 
guard against. 

As under each of the terms External and 
Internal Evidence, various proofs dissimilar 
in character have been sometimes included, 
it seems necessary for avoiding confusion to 
state, that the External Evidence is here un- 
derstood as embracing the argument from 
miracles, whether of knowledge or of power ; — 
the testimony of the first publishers of Chris- 
tianity to the fact of their being commission- 
ed of God; — with the Historical Evidence, or 
written testimony, the effect of which, if com- 
plete, is to place subsequent generations of 
men nearly in the same situation with those 
wno witnessed the miracles, and heard the tes- 
timony above mentioned :* — while the term 

* The history of Christianity furnishes some proofs of its truth 
which were not possessed by the first Christians , particularly in 



XX 



PREFACE. 



Internal Evidence is restricted to those proofs, 
which are founded on the character of Chris- 
tian doctrines and morals. 

the department of prophecy. Such proofs, however, are the 
same in kind with those which formed the grounds of their be- 
lief ; and the admissibility of those proofs depends on the legiti- 
macy of that particular kind of evidence to which they belong. 
There are other evidences furnished by history, which have been 
styled collateral, and which may be considered as wholly dis- 
tinct from those on which the belief of the early Christians was 
founded. Evidences of this description, have not, it is believed, 
been considered by any as competent to establish the truth of 
Christianity, supposing that those possessed by the early believers 
are in reality illegitimate or insufficient. Thus, upon the suppo- 
sition that certain principles which we assume, render the argu- 
ment from miracles inc onclusive, we cannot contend that the 
conversion of any number of men, effected by means of miracles, 
furnishes any valid ground for our belief. — It may be proper, 
however, to state that whatever proofs history may furnish, of a 
nature distinct from that of those evidences on which the faith 
of the early Christians was founded, are not aflected by the rea- 
sonings which follow. 



PRINCIPLES 

or 

CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE 

ILLUSTRATED, $c. 



CHAP. L 

PRINCIPLES ASSUMED BY DR CHALMERS AS THE 
BASIS OF HIS SCHEME OF CHRISTIAN EVI- 
DENCE CONSEQUENCES WHICH FOLLOW FROM 

THE ADOPTION OF THESE PRINCIPLES. 



Sect. I. The Conclusions of Natural Theology, and 
the Internal Evidence of Christianity , avowedly 
subverted. 

The leading principle which forms the foun- 
dation of the reasonings here subjected to ex- 
amination is, — that all conclusion; oja theologi- 
cal nature which are drawn from other sources 
than divine revelation, are fallacious. Hence 
it follows, that from the known character, or 
tendency of a relig ious system, we arc incapa- 
of forming any judgment respecting the 



£2 CONSEQUENCES OF THE 

validity of its claims to divine authority. 
' There is perhaps nothing,' says Dr Chalmers, 
c more thoroughly beyond the cognizance of 

* the human faculties than the truths of reli- 
6 gion, and the ways of that mighty and mvi- 

* sible Being who is the object of it.'* 6 We 
' are not competent to judge of the conduct 

* of the Almighty in given circumstances 
such judgment 6 is founded on assumption 
c entirely .'t fc To assign the character of the 
c divine administration from the little that of- 

* fers itself to the notice of our own personal 

* experience, would be far more absurd than 
c to infer the history and character of 'the 

* kingdom from the history and character of 

* our own families.' J 6 We hold, by the total 
6 insufficiency of natural religion, to pro- 

* nounce upon the intrinsic merits of any re- 
€ velation/ || 6 It is the part of reason to form 
€ its conclusions when it has data and eviden- 
' ces before it. But it is equally the part of 
' reason to abstain irom its conclusions when 

* these evidences are wanting. Reason can 

* judge of the external evidences, &c. But 

* reason is not entitled to sit in judgment over 
4 these internal evidences,' &c. 

* $ ^ 84- (The references are here made to the, article 
c * Christianity/' Edin. Encyc. 

f § 170. | § II I 1f $ 19& 



PRINCIPLES UNDER EXAMINATION. 23 

The unusual ground on which Dr. C. has 
here chosen to advocate the cause of Chris- 
tianity, he conceives to be of a nature pecu- 
liarly favourable for displaying its evidences 
with effect. He considers those deistical ob- 
jections, which are directed against the rea- 
sonableness or wisdom of Christian doctrines 
and morals, as annihilated by the principles 
which he assumes; and he represents the 
g eneral argument for the truth ot Christianity 
as rendered more powerful and impressive* 
The advantages which he imagines to be thus 
gained, more than compensate, in his opinion, 
for the absence of those proofs which are 
grounded on the excellence of Christianity ; 
and he accordingly hesitates not to advance 
principles avowedly subversive of evidences, 
which have in every age been considered as 
composing one of the strongest bulwarks of 
Christian faith. L The writer feels that in 
* thus disclaiming all support from what is 
' commonly understood by the internal evi- 
Q dence. he does not follow the general ex. 
' ample of those who have written cn the 
1 deistical controversy. Take up Leland's 
1 performance, and it will be found that one- 
c half of his discussion is expended upon the 
6 reasonableness of the doctrines, and in as- 
C 2 



24 



CONSEQUENCES OF THE 



{ serting the validity of the argument which 
c is founded upon that reasonableness. It 
6 would save a vast deal of controversy, if it 
6 could be proved that all this is superfluous 
6 and uncalled for. It is conceived that, in 
c this way, the general argument might be 
c made to assume a more powerful and im* 
6 pressive aspect.'* 6 An infidel objects against 
1 one of the peculiar doctrines of Christianity : 
( to repel the objection, the Christian con- 
c ceives it necessary to vindicate the reason- 
' ableness of that doctrine, and to shew how 
6 consistent it is with all those antecedent 
1 conceptions which we derive from the light 

• cf natural religion : all this we count su- 

* perilous; it is imposing an unnecessary 
6 task upon ourselves. Enough for us to 
' have established the authority of the Chris- 
' tian revelation upon the ground of its 
1 historical evidence. All that remains is to 
i submit our minds to the fair interpretation 
c of Scripture. Yes, but how do you dispose 
i of the objection drawn from the light of na- 
tural religion ? In precisely the same way 
6 that we would dispose of an objection drawn 
\ from some speculative system, against the 
4 truth of any physical fact that has been well 



PRINCIPLES UNDER EXAMINATION. 24 



6 established by observation or testimony. We 
6 would disown the system, and oppose the ob- 
e stinacy of the fact to all the elegance and 
1 ingenuity of the speculation.' * 

According to these views of religious evi- 
dence, it might seem that all objections di- 
rected against the character or tendency of 
religious systems claiming divine authority, 
are, in whatever shape they may come, effec- 
tually precluded ; and that the advocates of 
such systems, resting their cause exclusively 
on external evidence, are absolved from all 
obligation to discuss the reasonableness of ob- 
jections of this nature. If the human mind 
possesses no means of attaining any true con- 
ception of the divine character and adminis- 
tration ; if by the exercise of our intellectual, 
moral, and perceptive powers, we can reach 
no theological conclusions which are 6 of 
* more value than the fooleries of an infant,' 
it might seem that even the theology of Hesiod 
is completely unassailable by objections of 
this sort. — Whether the principles assumed by 
Dr. C, under the modifications to which in 
the course of his work he thinks it proper to 
subject them, are in reality thus efficacious 
for repelling objections, will be afterwards 
* | 174; 



26 



CONSEaUENCES OP THE 



considered: — meantime let us trace their o- 
peration in a more important department. 

The first and avowed effect of the princi- 
ples under consideration, is the annihilation of 
natural religion, and by consequence the sub- 
version of the internal evidence of Christiani- 
ty, As the term internal evidence, has, how- 
ever, been often vaguely applied, and as the 
operation of Dr. C.'s principles reaches much 
farther than might be readily understood from 
their being merely announced as destructive 
of this branch of proof, — it may be proper to 
trace their bearings on some arguments which 
properly belong to the class of internal evi- 
dences, and which are very commonly em- 
ployed for evincing the truth of Christianity, 
and recommending itto the general reception 
and obedience of men. 

4 The chief use/ it has been said, c of na- 

* tural religion, is to shew the high probability 

* of that being true which revelation de- 

* clares It has accordingly been common, 
even for those who place no high degree of 
confidence in the light of nature, to display 
the chief arguments which reason draws from 
observation of natural phenomena in favour of 
the existence, attributes, and moral govern* 

* Sumner. 



PRINCIPLES UNDER EXAMINATION. 27 



ment of God, as coinciding with and corrobo- 
rating the declarations of revelation regard- 
ing these fundamental doctrines. It is ob- 
vious, however, that if the principles assumed 
by Dr. C. are admitted, these evidences are 
set aside: — all theological conclusions founded 
on observation of the common phenomena of 
nature being pronounced fallacious. In like 
manner, the rectitude of God's revealed com- 
mands can no longer be urged upon the infi- 
del 3 nor the strict analogy which subsists be- 
tween the course of nature and the dispensa- 
tions of grace. Such points as these can only 
be ascertained by comparing the moral judg- 
ments of the human mind, and the results of 
human observation and experience, with the 
method of God's administration. In proof of 
that state of retributive existence hereafter, 
which is brought to light by the gospel, the 
particular inequalities incident to the present 
state of trial cannot be displayed ; — nor the 
manifest favour shew r n to virtue by the general 
laws which regulate the world ; — -nor the judg- 
ments of the mind regarding the nature and 
deserts of virtue and vice ; — nor the sense of 
shame and self-condemnation accompanying 
guilt nor the present narrow sphere of im~ 
provement, compared with the indefinite ad- 
vancement of which our intellectual and mo- 



28 



COKSEaUENCES OF TI-IE 



ral nature seems susceptible. In regard to 
the doctrine of atonement effected through 
the sufferings and death of the Mediator f we 
cannot, in consistency with this author's prin- 
ciples of evidence, attempt to produce con- 
viction in the minds of gainsayers, or to re. 
move their prejudices against it, by shewing 
how reasonable it is to believe that in the un- 
happy situation of sinful man, looking fear- 
fully for judgment, a God of infinite justice, 
combined with infinite mercy, should adopt 
such a plan for man's salvation. The advo. 
cates of revelation must no more press upon 
their opponents, the perfect harmony which 
subsists among all the parts composing the 
gospel-scheme, — or the satisfactory manner in 
which the whole combined comes home to 
every reflecting mind, illuminating its dark- 
ness, relieving its anxieties, and invigorating 
its weakness. All this is leading a proof of 
the truth of religious conclusions, from prin- 
ciples and feelings of human nature : it is ar- 
guing upon the ground that a scheme so wise- 
ly and benignantly adapted to the nature and 
necessities of human beings, and so harmo- 
nious in itself, may reasonably be considered 
as proceeding from the fountain of order, wis- 
dom, and benignity. And this is 4 an inac- 
6 cessible subject it is 6 thoroughly beyond: 



PRINCIPLES UNDER EXAMINATION. 



29 



c the cognizance of the human faculties it is 
* like the ether and whirlpools of Des Cartes.'* 
In short— the administration of infinite wis- 
dom, as disclosed by revelation, cannot (in 
consistency with these principles) be recom- 
mended by any such means as shew that it is 
reasonable, to the regard of reasonable beings. 

The evidence arising from the excellence 
of its moral system, has usually been consider- 
ed as forming an important part of the gener- 
al proof on which the truth of Christianity 
rests. The pure and fervent piety which is 
there displayed, equally deyoid of enthusiasm 
and of superstition — the excellence of the 
rules given for the regulation of the conduct 
of men in their intercourse with one another, 
— the powerful cnecks placed on human pas- 
sion the moment it oversteps the limits assign- 
ed it by reason, — the superiority given to solid 
over specious virtues, — the candid, liberal, 
and humane spirit which it every where 
breathes, not proceeding from laxity of prin- 
ciple, yet completely opposed to morose aus- 
terity, — the simple and useful character of its 
positive duties, duties strictly enjoined, yet oc- 
cupying that inferior place which reason as- 
signs them, when viewed in connection with 
those of a moral nature : — these, with a variety 
* 5. 1*9, 



30 



CONSEQUENCES OF THE 



of other circumstances characteristic of the ex- 
cellence of Christian ethics, when viewed in 
connection with the education and opportuni- 
ties of the persons by whom the gospel was pub- 
lished, furnish an argument of no mean weight 
in favour of the divinity of its origin. The 
character of Jesus also forms a part of Chris, 
tian morals, and furnishes powerful evidence 
in favour of the truth of that religion which he 
taught. If the principles laid down by Dr. 
C 6 are recognised as valid, all these eviden- 
ces, however solid and satisfactory in appear- 
ance,— become radically fallacious. 

The amount of evidence, of which Christi- 
anity is thus wholly deprived, may be estimat- 
ed from the following consideration. Suppos- 
ing the character of that Revelation to have 
been in no degree excellent or important : — 
supposing its object to have been, merely to 
inform the inhabitants of this planet, that Sa- 
turn's ring is composed of such or such mate- 
rials ; or that in a distant corner of the Uni- 
verse there are 4 beings who have the power 
1 of spontaneous movements in free spaces 
the legitimate evidence of the truth of Chris- 
tianity would have been in no degree less 
than we actually find it; — we should have 
been in that case under an equal obligation 



PRINCIPLES UNDER EXAMINATION. Si 



to examine and weigh the external evidences 
with the most scrupulous care ; and we might, 
for aught we could tell, have incurred equal 
forfeitures through unbelief. 

Sect. II. The Evidences of Miracles and 
Testimony, indirectly subverted. 

Every one who is in the least acquainted 
with the subjects of deistical controversy, 
which have of late years attracted the largest 
share of public attention, is aware that preli- 
minary objections directed against the compe- 
tency of the external evidence, have, from 
the imposing form which they have been made 
to assume, been productive of no less injury 
to the influence of Christianity, than attacks 
directed against the reasonableness or excel- 
lence of its doctrines and its precepts. Dr 
C. remarks, that 6 infidels are seldom found 
c on the ground of the historical evidence;' 
yet it is certain that the historical evidence 
(in the loose and general sense in which he 
uses that term) has been a common subject 
of attack from the days of Celsus,* to those 

* Its t5t<j &$i»cc%/9%9tejs puprv; ro (pdrpx ; % rig SxSfftt I J vacuS 
pirx 9H ****X**fUrmt* — Cels. apud Origen* 



32 



CONSEQUENCES OF THE 



of Bolingbrokeand Hume ; and the most formi- 
dable assault which Christianity has of late en- 
countered, was that made by the last mention- 
ed of these writers on that department of e- 
vidence. Upon the strength of alleged pre- 
sumptions * against the validity of the Christi- 
an testimony, Hume attempted to reduce the 
whole historical evidence in favour of the oc- 
currence of supernatural phenomena, to the 
level of those tales of prodigies and portents 
of which ancient history is full. This attack 
was triumphantly repelled by the ablest of his 
antagonists, who shewed, that there is. on the 
contrary, 6 a peculiar presumption in favour of 
' such miracles as are said to be wrought in 
6 support of religion.' But the argument by 
which this conclusion is established, rests on 
Q the dignity of the end f it rests on the high 

* ' If the spiiit of religion join itself to the spirit of wonder, 
there is fc an end of common sense ; and human testimony in 
8 these circumstances, loses all pretensions to authority/ fee 

Hume. 

f ' The boldest Infidel will not deny, that the immortality 
of the soul ; a future and eternal state, with our present good 
or bad conduct, not to mention the doctrines concerning the 
divine unity and perfections, are tenets which carry- no absur- 
dity in them.' ' Now. as whatever is possible may be suppos- 
ed, let us suppose that the dogmas above mentioned are infal- 
lible truths • and let the unbeliever say, whether he can con- 
ceive an object worthier of the divine interposal, than to re- 



PRINCIPLES UNDER EXAMINATION, S3 



importance of the information conveyed to 
man by the Christian Revelation. It esta- 
blishes an important distinction between the 
supernatural phenomena recorded in Scrip- 
ture, and those which are related by Livy,Ioici- 
an, Tacitus, &c. ; but it presupposes a capaci- 
ty on the part of man to 6 reason,' with some 
degree of probability, c on the procedure of 
€ the Almighty in given circumstances It 
proceeds on the supposition, that antecedent 
knowledge of the character of the Deity en- 
titles us to conclude, that it is more probable 
he may supernaturally interpose in the affairs 
of mankind, in order to effect an end of the 
greatest possible importance to them, than for 
a trivial end, or for no end at all that man 
can discover. If such a capacity on the part 
of man is disproved, this argument, with the 

'• veal these truths to mankind ; and to enforce them in such a 
1 manner as may give them a suitable influence on the heart 

* and life.' ' This object is no other than the interest of man, a 
1 reasonable and moral agent, the only being in this world which 
{ bears the image of his Maker ; not the interest of an individual, 
' but of the kind ; not for a limited duration, but for eternity ; an 

* object, at least in one respect, adequate to the majesty of God.' 
c Thus it appears that from the dignity of the end, there arises 
' a peculiar presumption in favour of such miracles as are said 

* to have been wrought in support of Religion.' 

Campbell's Essay on Miracles* 
D 



34 



CONSEQUENCES OF THE 



distinction which it establishes, falls to the 
ground. 

Other arguments, corroborative of the histo- 
rical evidence, might bementioned, whichcan- 
not, if they are admitted to be sound, be sup- 
posed altogether void of influence; particu- 
larly on the minds of those who, without in- 
vestigating laboriously and fully the intrinsic 
strength of that evidence, have become ac- 
quainted with the objections which Hume and 
others have brought against its validity. And, 
although it is impossible to view, with any 
other sentiment than approbation, the can- 
dour which leads, and ought to lead the ad- 
vocate of Christianity to disclaim and expose 
such arguments in its favour as are unsound, 
— it seems equally laudable to exercise great 
caution in pronouncing arguments fallacious, 
which appear capable, in no ordinary degree, 
of warding off prepossessions against the con- 
clusiveness of its evidences. 

Depriving Christianity, however, of all sup- 
port derived from such sources, Dr C. rests 
its truth < exclusively' on the purity cf the 
historical record, the real occurrence of the mi- 
raculous phenomena, and the unimpeachable 
character of the witnesses. The proof of 
these points, he represents as every thing ne- 
cessary to the conclusiveness of Christian evi- 



PRINCIPLES UNDER EXAMINATION, 35 



dence. To complete the proof, it is neither 
necessary to possess any previous conceptions 
of Deity, nor to take into view the character of 
the information given by the 6 messengers.' 
The necessity, indeed, of referring either to an. 
tecedentconclusions ofa theological nature, or 
to the character of the revelation, in order to 
complete the proof, could not be admitted 
without subverting the principles on which his 
theory of evidence is built. Such admission, 
in either case, would throw open a door for 
the discussion of the reasonablenessand excel- 
lence of Christian doctrine. The proof, there- 
fore, of the truth and divine authority of 
Christianity, he represents, in many passages, 
as completed by the establishment of the 
points above mentioned. < Enough for us to 
c have established the authority of the Christi- 
< an revelation upon the ground of its histo- 
' rical evidence.' ' The question is made to vest 
c exclusively on the character of the testimo- 
ny, and the circumstances attending it, and 
1 no antecedent theology of their own is suf- 
i fered to mingle with the investigation. If 
c the historical evidence of Christianity is 
' found to be conclusive, they conceive the in- 
' vestigation to be at an end.' * * Upon the 

* § 176. 



36 



CONSEQUENCES OF THE 



4 authority of the proofs already insisted upon, 
4 (external.) the New Testament must be re- 
ceived,' &c. ; 4 and nothing remains on our 
4 part but an act of unreserved submission 
4 to all the doctrine and information,* &c. 
4 After we have established Christianity to be 
4 an authentic message from God upon the 
4 the historical grounds, where the reason and 
4 experience of man entitle him to form his 
4 conclusions, nothing remains for us but an un- 
4 conditional surrender,' f&c. Theloose man- 
ner of expression to which DrC. is accustom- 
ed, might lead his readers on many occasions 
to suppose, that the historical evidence, if com- 
plete, is in itself sufficient for establishing the 
truth of Christianity. * This, however, is far 
from being the case. The historical evidence, 
in its proper acceptation, reaches no farther 
than to the establishment of certain facts. Whe- 
ther these facts prove the truth of Christiani- 
ty, is a point which involves the discussion of 
other evidence than that furnished by history. 

t § 192. 

* * Christianity is a Religion of facts.' * "What was origin- 
' ally the evidence of observation, is now transformed into the 

* evidence of testimony.' 1 In laying before the reader, then, 
6 the evidence of the truth of Christianity, we do not call hi* 
' mind to any singular or unprecedented exercise of its facul- 

* ties. We call him to pronounce upon the credibility of wrifc- 
s lea documents,' 



PRINCIPLES 



UNDER 



EXAMINATION. 



37 



The historical evidence being complete, its 
effect is to place the persons to whom it is ad- 
dressed, nearly in the situation of those who 
were eye-witnesses of the miracles wrought in 
attestation of the truth of Christianity, and 
who heard its first publishers declare that 
it was communicated to them from heaven. 
Assuming then, that even on Dr C.'s princi- 
ples, the Historical evidence, in its proper ac- 
ceptation, is conclusive, — let us examine by 
what further steps conviction of the truth of 
Christianity may on these principles be reach- 
ed. 

In this investigation we shall derive occa- 
sional aid from the use of the same fiction 
which our author has employed, for at once 
exhibiting the efficacy of the external evi- 
dence, and shewing its entire independence of 
the internal, and of all previous conclusions 
of a theological nature. For these purposes 
he has brought forward a personage, whose 
mind is devoid of all antecedent conceptions 
of Deity ; an J who, therefore, having remained 
impugnable to all those delusive evidences 
whicii natural religion furnishes, must be 
considered, according to Dr C/s princi- 
ples, as the proper repiesentative of all the 
rational part of mankind. The mind of this 
D 2 



CONSEQUENCES OF THE 



infidel personage is, in certain respects, of 
very peculiar construction. Dr C. remarks, 
that the evidences of Christianity are suited 
to every species of infidelity : the subject, 
however, which he has selected for the pur* 
pose of exhibiting the effect of his peculiar 
system of evidence, is not derived from any 
of the classes of unbelievers actually existing : 
he is an Atheist, but one whose existence is 
merely potential. In the production of athe- 
ism, a variety of causes may operate : it may 
proceed from depravity of heart, from an au- 
dacious determination to takeali hazards for the 
sake of acquiring distinction, from false views 
of the effects of religion on society, &c. The 
power \\ hich causes of this sort possess, to steel 
the mind against the impression of evidence, 
is sufficiently known ; but it is questionable 
whether there ever was a man, wholly unbias- 
sed by prepossessions of any kind, who, after 
duly weighing the evidence furnished by na- 
ture for the existence of an intelligent First 
Cause, honestly embraced atheism in conse- 
quence of the total inconclusiveness of that 
evidence. Here, however, the Atheist before 
us differs from all others. Dr C. does not 
bring his system of evidence into contact with 
'the more unmanageable tendencies of the 



PRINCIPLES UNDER EXAMINATION. 39 



; heart and temper,' with { the stubborn dis- 
' position of the heart to resist every religious 
\ conviction/ His Atheist is so constituted, 
that to him the being of God is i a pure intel- 
f lectual question :' he has no prepossessions 
of any kind. He is in a c neutral/ or 6 nega- 
tive' state; he does not find the slightest 
reason for supposing that a Deity exists, or 
that he does not exist ; nothing possessing 
the character of evidence appears to his un- 
derstanding to belong to the subject. The 
assertion, that the universe owes existence to 
a great First Cause, bears to his mind the pre- 
cise character of an ' assertion, that in some 
6 distant regions of the creation there are tracts 
' of space which, instead of being occupied 
6 like the tracts around us with suns and pla- 
c nets, teem only with animated beings, who, 
6 without being supported like us on the firm 
€ surface of a world, have the power of ?pon- 
1 "aneous movements in free spaces. 9 He 
1 cannot say that the assertion is not true,' c it 
c carries in it no positive character of truth or 
1 falsehood.' 6 He affirms that, while there is 
6 nothing before him but the consciousness of 
i what passes within, and the observation of 
i what passes without, it remains an assertion 
i destitute of proof, and can have no more ef- 



40 



CONSEQUENCES OF THE 



€ feet upon his conviction than any other non. 

* entity of the imagination.'* 

Having thus moulded the mind of this 
ideal personage, into such a form as to allow 
full scope for the exercise of reason in judg- 
ing of the evidence to be laid before him, Dr 
C. declares his Atheist to be 4 in the best pos- 
6 sible condition for submitting his understand- 
4 ing to the entire impression of the historical 

* evidence.' t That understanding is equally 
purified from all preconceived opinions^ whe- 
ther derived from Natural Religion, or from 
Deism, — systems which Dr C. seems to hold 
equally unworthy of credit, and which he in- 
discriminately designates as founded on 6 as- 
sumption' and mere 4 speculation.' Such is 
'the understanding,' therefore, which he con» 
4 siders as 4 in a high state of preparation for 
4 taking in Christianity in a far purer and more 
1 scriptural form, than can be exptcted from 

* those whose mmds are tainted and pre-occu- 
1 pied with their former speculations/ J 

Before this Atheist can, however, 4 take in 
€ Christianity,' it must be shewn that the ex- 

* § 179, 180, 181, 182. 
\ * To be a philosophical sceptic is in a man of letters, the 
irst and most essential step towards being a sound belieriBg 
Christian.'— Hume. 



PRINCIPLES UNDER EXAMINATION. 41 



ternal evidences submitted to his examina- 
tion, are sufficient to produce conviction in a 
mind constituted like his. Accordingly, Dr 
C. proceeds to ' lay before' his atheist ' the 
( existence of God by an evidence altoge- 
' ther distinct from the natural argument of 
6 the schools.' * He presses upon him the e- 
vidence from miracles and testimony ; and he 
considers the triumph of his argument as com- 
plete. Dr C. seems, however, to have over- 
looked some very material circumstances in 
the intellectual constitution and habits of this 
ideal personage, or in the nature of the evi- 
dence which he thus submits to him. For it 
will be found upon investigation, that without 
introducing other elements into the process 
than those which, upon Dr C's. principles, are 
admissible, the result brought out by him is 
unattainable. 

The first step which our author takes, in 
proposing to the Atheist the evidencesof Chris- 
tianity, is to put the question, 6 What then (we 
1 ask,) does the Atheist make of the miracles 
6 of the New T Testament?' — Before proceeding 
to the answer, it may be proper to attend 
a little to the general nature of the ar- 

* § 182. 



42 



CONSEQUENCES OF THE 



gument from miracles, and the principles on 
which its conclusiveness depends. 

The historical evidence being assumed as 
satisfactory, we may consider ourselves as the 
witnesses of a phenomenon, properly mi- 
raculous. How do we who witness this phe- 
nomenon attain the knowledge of its miracu- 
lous nature ? This knowledge is not derived 
from the evidence of sense , for the testimony 
of the senses can in no case establish any 
thing beyond the occurrence of external 
phenomena. That the event in question is 
properly miraculous, u e. that it implies the 
suspension of one or more laws by which the 
ordinary course of nature is regulated, is a 
deduction of reason. For how do we come 
to know that there is a course of nature ; that 
there are established laws by which the ope- 
rations of nature are ordinarily conducted ? 
The senses form no general conclusion : they 
merely supply particular facts, and from these 
facts we reason that certain general laws ex- 
ist. And when the senses supply us with facts 
which are of miraculous nature, we in like 
manner infer by the exercise of reason, 
that the general laws formerly discovered have 
in these particular cases ceased to operate, 



PRINCIPLES UNDER EXAMINATION. 43 



having been by some supernatural power con- 
trouled or suspended. 

From the occurrence of phenomena, ascer- 
tained in this manner to be properly miracu- 
lous, by what means do we become convinced 
of the interposition of the Supreme Being ? 

the exercise of reason, agreeably to that 
fundamental law of our rational nature, by 
which we are impelled to refer every effect 
to an adequate efficient cause; precisely in 
the same manner, and by the same steps, as 
from observation of the common phenomena 
of nature, we conduct the natural argument 
for the existence of God to the conclusion 
that there must be an eternal intelligent Cause. 
Proceeding under the sanction of this law of 
belief reason reaches the conclusion, that a 
cause sufficient to the production of pheno. 
nomena implying a suspension of the laws of 
nature, can be nothing inferior to the power 
of Him by whom these laws were established. 
By further investigation of principles, com- 
bined with observation of the order of nature, 
reason farther concludes, that the cause which 
operates the production of these supernatural 
phenomena, is and must be the power > either 
mediately or immediately exerted, of the one 
Supreme Lord of Nature. But without recog- 



44 



CONSEQUENCES OP THE 



nizing the authority of this law of belief, and 
the competency of reason under its sanction, 
to draw from observation of what passes with- 
out, inferences which € regard the proceedings 
4 of the Almighty in given circumstances/ it 
is obvious that the conclusive evidence fur- 
nished by supernatural phenomena in attesta- 
tion of a commission derived from 8 the invi- 
' sible God/ is effectually precluded.* 

Having in this manner established the in- 
terposition of Almighty power in the produc- 
tion of the phenomena in question, by what 
process do the witnesses reach the conclusion 

* There are two passages in Dr C.'s work, in which he 
seems to perceive the necessity of calling in previous concep- 
tions of the character of the Deity, in order to complete the ar- 
gument from the external evidence. These passages are, of 
course, wholly irreconcilable with his general principles and 
train of reasoning. * The messengers may agree in giving us 

* a watch- word,' -(alluding to miracles,) c which we previously 
' knew could be given Dy none but their master.' Again, ' Did 
4 they exhibit any special mark of their office as the messengers 
4 of God ; such a mark as none but God could give, and none 

* but his approved messengers could obtain the possession of ?' 
This ' question' lies, he declares ' within the legitimate- bounda- 
6 ries of human observation ' a position which it must require 
great ingenuity to support, and stij] more to reconcile with 
the repeated assertion, that man possesses no natural means of 
knowing any thing of the character of God, being ' removed 
1 from all personal observation of Him or his counsels.' — § 4, 8. 



PRINCIPLES UNDER EXAMINATION. 45 



that the information communicated to them 
by the immediate operator, is true ? No ne~ 
cessary connection exists between miracles, 
and the truth of a religious system. In cer- 
tain circumstances, supernatural phenomena 
may occur, without having any reference to 
the truth of doctrines. The witnesses, how- 
ever, finding that the miracle is announced 
and appealed to by the operator, in proof of 
the truth of a doctrine declared to proceed 
from God, are entitled to reason in this man- 
ner : Almighty power cannot thus be exhi- 
bited in attestation of error or imposture, he- 
cause the Almighty is omniscient and true. 
There does not seem to be any other process, 
by which, from these premises, the conclu- 
sion can be reached. And whence do the 
•witnesses attain the knowledge of that prin- 
ciple upon which this conclusion is formed, 
that Almighty power exists in conjunction 
with omniscience and veracity ? This prin- 
ciple is certainly not the immediate dictate of 
c observation' or ' experience f nor does Dr 
C. deem it necessary to contend that miracles 
furnish any direct evidence of the moral at- 
tributes of God. The witnesses cannot derive 
this knowledge from the revelation ] for sup- 
posing its doctrines already promulgated, the 



46 CONSEGtUENCES OF THE 



witnesses by supposition possess no know- 
ledge that the revelation is authoritative, un- 
less by the evidence of the miracle. That God 
is omniscient and true, is a proposition there- 
fore which rests on antecedent knowledge ac- 
quired from some distinct source, supposing 
the revelation to stand exclusively on the miracle* 
Now, in regard to all conclusions respecting 
the character or administration of the Supreme 
Being, founded on previous experience, intel- 
lectual principles, or processes of reasoning, 
they are of no more value, we are informed, 
than the fooleries of an infant. Yet these are 
found to form the foundation on which the ar- 
gument from miracles stands.* 

6 What then, we ask, does the Atheist make 
1 of the miracles of the New Testament ?' — We 
are now prepared for joining with Dr C. in 
putting this question, and for examining the 
answer which he makes to it. c If he ques- 
< tions their truth, he must do it upon grounds 
4 that are purely historical. He is precluded 
4 from every other ground, by the very prin- 

* The reasoning here employed refers more directly "to mi- 
racles of power than of knowledge. As the argument from pro- 
phecy, however, rests obviously on similar grounds, it seems un- 
necessary to consider particularly the manner in which it is af- 
fected by Dr C.'s principles. 



PRINCIPLES 



UNDER 



EXAMINATION. 



47 



4 ciple upon which he has rested his atheism ; 
' and we therefore, upon the strength of that 
c testimony whichhasbeen exhibited, press the 
6 admission of these miracles as facts. If 
' there be nothing, then, in the ordinary phe- 
6 nomena of nature, to infer a God, do these 
c extraordinary phenomena supply him with 
' no argument ?' * We shall admit that the 
Atheist is bound to acquiesce in the conclu- 
siveness of the historical evidence ; that is, to 
acknowledge the occurrence of the superna- 
tural phenomena. But it seems by no means 
clear, that he is precluded from entertaining 
very serious doubts respecting the validity of 
that argument for the existence of God, which 
is founded on those phenomena. It is indeed 
difficult to determine what are the objections 
which he is precluded from offering, 6 by the 
' very principle on which he has rested his 
1 atheism } 9 — for it is by no means clear what 
that principle is ; or rather, while atheism 
may be founded on one of two principles, 
each very inauspicious to the effect of the ar- 
gument from miracles, this 'intellectual' Athe- 
ist seems to have appropriated both. 

The great natural argument for the exis- 
tence of God, derived from observation of his 
works, can only be resisted on one of two 
* § 182. 



48 



CONSEQUENCES OF THE 



grounds either by maintaining, that appear- 
ances of design do not entitle us to infer an in- 
telligent cause ; or, that nature exhibits no ap* 
pearances of design. There is no other prin- 
ciple on whic h atheism can be rested. If it is 
acknowledged that marks of design are found 
in nature, and that where these are found, a 
designing cause must necessarily be inferred, 
the conclusion is irresistible, that there is a 
God. In the ' whole range of principles of 
reasoning, the intellectual' Atheist can find no 
refuge, unless in the denial of one or the other 
of these premises. To guard against any 
misconception, then, of the opinions of this 
peculiar personage, it will be proper to con- 
sider him as resting his atheism, first on the 
principle, that from marks of design it does 
not necessarily follow that an intelligent cause 
exists,— and, next, on the ground, that no 
marks of design are discernible in the works 
of nature. 

1. That the first of these principles is held 
by the Atheist in question, seems probable 
from this circumstance, that it is the great 
principle which pervades the reasoning em- 
ployed by Dr C. for setting aside the natural 
evidences for the existence of Deity. That 
God is by his nature * invisible/ and 6 inac* 



PRINCIPLES UNDER EXAMINATION. 49 



* cessible,' — that he is not the object of e di- 
6 rect or personal observation/ — are assertions 
which can furnish no ground whatever for Dr 
C.'s conclusion, that all knowledge of his ex- 
istence and character is unattainable, — unless 
upon the principle, that we are not entitled 
to reason from effects to their efficient causes. 
Either our author holds this principle, or nu- 
merous passages in his work, conveying sen- 
timents which he seems to consider as of great 
importance, are absolutely void of meaning. — 
That we have experience of God, is an ex- 
pression common enough in the works of the 
best theological writers ; * and it is used to in?- 
dicate the intimacy of that acquaintance with 
the character and administration of the Sur 
preme Being, which is acquired in conse*- 
quence of our being daily conversant with 

* Since writing the above, I have to add to the names of 
Butler, Campbell, &c that of a more modem theologian, who 
uses the term ' experience' in the same sense. ' Now, what 
' God is doing with me, lie is doing with every distinct individual 

* of this world's population. The intimacy of his presence, and 

* attention and care, reaches to one and all of these. With a 

* mind unburdened by the vastness of its other concerns, he can 

* prosecute, without distraction, the government and guardian- 

* ship of every son and daughter of the species. And is it for us, 

* in the face of all this experience, ungratefully to draw a limit 
s around the perfections of God ? — to aver,' &c. 

Chalmers' Astronom. Sermon$ a 
£ 2 



50 CONSEQUENCES OF THE 



effects attributable only to Him as the cause* 
That we have c no experience of God,' is an 
expression repeated again and again in the 
course of Dr CVs work; — and, like the other 
expressions above mentioned, it is used in the 
way of argument for oversetting the conclu- 
sions of natural theology. The phrase, 6 ex- 
1 perience of God/ as used by Dr C. must be 
intended then to convey a meaning widely 
different from that which common usage has 
assigned it \ otherwise the assertion that c we 
4 have no experience of God,' could form no 
foundation for such an argument. Our au- 
thor's reasoning must consequently be this ;— - 
as in the strict sense of the term, we have no 
experience of God, — i. e. no direct and person- 
al intercourse with him ; — as he is not the ob- 
ject of our senses, — all our pretended know- 
ledge of his existence, character, and adminis* 
tration, drawn from observation of the phe- 
nomena of nature, is mere assumption ;—for, 
it is incompetent for human reason to infer, 
from observation of effects, the existence or 
character of a cause of which we have no di- 
rect and personal experience. We are o- 
bliged therefore to conclude, either that Dr 
C. rests conclusions upon premises with which 
they have no connection, or that he holds it 



PRINCIPLES UNDER EXAMIN4 TION^ 51 



as a principle, that marks of design do not in- 
fer an intelligent cause. 

We may presume therefore that the intel- 
lectual Atheist rests his infidelity upon the 
same principle, as that which, according to 
Dr C.'s reasoning, renders atheism, in the ab- 
sence of revelation, the only rational creed. 
In the account given us of this Atheist's prin- 
ciples, there is one expression, indeed, which 
leads to the supposition, that his sentiments, 
in this particular, differ from those of our au- 
thor ; and that his only objection to the con- 
clusiveness of the natural argument is, that 
there are not marks of 6 design in nature' to 
support the conclusion. This objection will 
fall afterwards to be considered ; we shall in 
the meantime proceed upon the supposition, 
that the atheism, whether of this personage or 
of any other, is grounded upon \he principle 
which pervades Dr C.'s general reasonings. 

It is obvious that, to one who holds this prin^ 
ciple, ' these extraordinary phenomena sup- 
6 ply' no c argument to infer a God.' 4 Does a 

* voice from heaven,' says our author, ' make 

* no impression on him ? And we have the 

* best evidence which history can furnish, that 

* such a voice was uttered. We have the evi- 
< dence of a fact, for the existence of that 
c very Being from whom the voice proceed- 



52 



CONSEQUENCES OF THE 



( ed ; and the evidence of a thousand 
6 facts, for a power superior to nature.' * 
Alas ! to evidence of this sort, such an Atheist 
is constitutionally impregnable. What are 
6 facts' such as these to him ? — They do not 
render the Deity the object of human c expe- 
' rience' (in Dr C.'s sense of the term,) or of 
' direct and personal observation :' they afford 
no manifestation of the Eternal Mind, Does 
Dr C. consider the 4 voice from heaven,' on 
which he seems to lay peculiar weight, as a 
phenomenon affording evidence different in 
kind from that which is furnished by the other 
miraculous facts to which he alludes ? Everr 
anthropomorphism could not supply argument 
to maintain such an opinion. The 6 voice 
''from heaven/ furnishes evidence precisely 
the same in kind, with that which the other 
miraculous appearances display ; and from none 
of them can the conclusion which our author 
considers as so obvious, be reached by any o- 
ther process than that of reasoning ftom the 
effect to the cause. But this mode of reason, 
in?, the Atheist rejects as illegitimate. This 
is 'the very principle on which/ by supposi- 
tion, 1 he has rested his atheism.' ' It is the 
ground on which he remained inaccessible to 
the argument from design ; and that argu- 



PRINCIPLES UNDER EXAMINATION. 53 



ment is in principle precisely the same with 
the argument from miracles. 

There are two conclusions, which our au- 
thor, in his loose manner of reasoning, here 
presses upon his Atheist, as if they were strict- 
ly interchangeable: the existence of 6 a God/ 
and of ' a power superior to nature.' To us 
whose preconceptions are so different from 
those of the negative Atheist, the distinction 
may not at first view be very apparent. We 
are accustomed to consider supernatural pow- 
er as inseparably connected with intelligence 
and with moral character \ but to the mind of 
such an Atheist, no such connection would ap- 
pear to exist. Should it therefore be admit- 
ted that he finds reason to conclude from the 
phenomena in question, that there exists a 
6 power superior to nature,' he is still very far 
from finding evidence of the existence of a 
i God.' But the truth is, that this Atheist is 
constitutionally incapable of being convinced 
by any such means, of the existence even of 
a 6 power superior to nature :* — nay, he is in- 
capable of forming an idea of power. This 
idea is only to be acquired by inference 
from effects produced by that attribute, which 
certainly never has been the subject of 6 direct 
1 and personal observation.' The Atheist < af- 



54 CONSEQUENCES OF THE 



€ firms, that while there is nothing before him 
6 but the consciousness of what passes within, 
6 and the observation of what passes without, 
' it, (< the existence of God,') remains an as- 
i sertion destitute of proof, and can have no 
' more effect upon his conviction, than any 
6 other non-entity of the imagination.' If by 
this affirmation is meant, that the existence of 
God, founded on reasoning from the effect to 
the cause, can only be established through the 
medium of other ideas than those which con- 
sciousness and external perception supply ; — 
sources, from which alone all the ideas this 
personage is possessed of are derived ; — then 
it follows, even from his own account of his 
intellectual capacities, that he is wholly inca- 
pable of forming a conception of power ; for 
it is universally acknowledged, that no such 
conception is derived from either of these 
sources. 4 If we had no notions,' says Dr 
Reid, 6 but such as are furnished by the ex- 
c ternal senses, and by consciousness, it seems 
' impossible that we should ever have any 
* conception of power.' And as the Atheist 
agrees with Hume, that ( we can have no idea 
6 of any thing which never appeared to our 
c outward sense or inward sentiment,' Dr C. 
does but beat the wind, when he attempts, by 



PRINCIPLES UNDER EXAMINATION. 55 



urging effects produced by power, whether 
natural or supernatural, to bar Hume's <ne- 
i cessary conclusion, that we have no idea of 
6 connection or power at all ; and that these 

* words are absolutely without any meaning 
6 when employed either in philosophical rea- 
' sonings, or in common life.' 

The argument from miraculous phenomena 
being thus entirely inefficacious, let us attend 
to the effect which the testimony of the Chris- 
tian witnesses is calculated to produce on the 
mind of this Atheist. Dr C. urges this evi- 
dence in the following manner : 6 The osten- 
c sible agent in all these wonderful transac- 
c tions, gave not only credentials of his power, 
' but he gave such credentials of his honesty, 
4 as dispose our understanding to receive his 
6 explanation of them. We do not avail our- 

* selves of any other principle than what an a- 
1 t heist will acknowledge. He understands, as 
6 well as we do, the natural signs of veracity, 
' which lie in the tone, the manner, the coun- 
6 tenance, the high moral expression of worth 

< and benevolence, and, above all, in that firm 
6 and undaunted constancy, which neither 
€ contempt, nor poverty, nor death, could shift 
' from any of its positions. All these claims 

< upon our belief were accumulated to an un- 



56 



CONSEQUENCES OF THE 



6 exampled degree in the person of Jesus of 
i Nazareth. 5 * 

That these claims must be found irresisti- 
ble by every mind, the moral or intellectual 
oblic^uities of which do not destroy the fair 
impression of legitimate evidence, we gladly 
acknowledge : but such is the perverse force 
of that principle on which the atheism now 
under consideration is rested, that it rejects, 
as 6 a nonentity of the imagination,' every 
such ground of belief. So wide is the range 
of that law of belief by which we are impelled, 
from the character of effects, to infer the ex- 
istence and nature of efficient causes; and so 
intimately connected is the natural argument 
from design, with every department of Christian 
evidence, — that the principles which may be 
assumed to justify resistance to that law, and 
rejection of the conclusions of natural theo- 
logv, are found everywhere to oppose the 
Christian argument. Thus, how vain is it to 
urge upon a mind which disclaims the authori- 
ty of this law of belief, the credibility of tes- 
timony, and the high moral character of those 
by whom it is emitted ? If power be a word 
absolutely without meaning,— how can 4 ve- 
* racity/ 4 worth,' 6 benevolence,' < constancy,' 
* $ 182. 



PRINCIPLES UNDER EXAMINATION. 57 

be any thing else than mere c nonentities of 
6 the imagination ? c We do not avail our- 
( selves/ says Dr C. 6 of any other principle 
' than what an atheist will acknowledge!' And 
he instantly proceeds to avail himself of 
principles which the Atheist does not acknow- 
ledge ; nay, principles which Dr C. himself 
cannot acknowledge, if his own reasonings 
against the conclusions of natural theology 
are good for any thing. To advance a prin- 
ciple, when it serves to overthrow an obnoxious 
train of reasoning, and to retract it as soon as 
it is found to encumber a favourite argument, 
is a mode of proceeding which is no doubt in- 
dispensably necessary to the support of cer- 
tain hypotheses ; but it is one which rarely es- 
capes detection, even when conducted in the 
most artful and imposing manner. It is vain 
to press the admission of conclusions upon 
grounds which have been previously affirmed 
to be fallacious; and the existence of those 
qualities which give credibility to the testi- 
mony of the witnesses, can be proved upon no 
other principle than that which has been re- 
jected. 6 The actions and discourses of men 
' are effect s^oi which the actors and speakers ara 
1 the causes. The effects are perceived by our 
' senses, — but the causes are behind the scene* 



5* 



-CONSEQUENCES OF THE 



6 We only conclude their existence and their 
6 degrees from our observation of the effects. 

* From wise conduct we infer wisdom in the 
c cause, from brave actions we infer courage, 
1 and so of the rest.'* Disowning that pri- 
mary element of reason, by which the cha- 
racter of the cause is inferred from that of 
the effect, no means remain by which this 
Atheist can reach the conclusion. He is 
constitutionally incapable of 6 understand- 

* ing, as we do, the natural signs of vera- 

* city,' &c. 6 In the conclusions we form, 

* (says Mr Stewart) concerning the minds and 
1 characters of our fellow creatures, as well as 
€ in the inferences drawn concerning u the 
' invisible things of God from the things that 
*are made," there is a perception of the un- 
derstanding implied, for which neither rea- 

* soning nor experienced sufficient to account.' 
He who denies the existence of that power 
of the human intellect, by the exercise of 
tvhich we perceive the nature and qualities of 
the great Efficient Cause in the nature and 
qualities of his works, cannot, without gross 
inconsistency, pretend that he is capable of 
perceiving the moral qualities of his fellow- 
mien by any means whatever. Consciousness. 



PRINCIPLES UNDER EXAMINATION. 59 



observation, experience, reasoning, will serve 
him in no stead bere. The 6 negative' attain- 
ments of this Atheist, which served to render 
him impregnable to the argument from design^ 
place him also beyond the reach of the evi- 
dence which Dr C. here lays before him. 
That species of evidence, so far from being ♦ 
e altogether distinct,' as Dr C. affirms, 6 from 
1 the natural argument of the schools,' is in 
truth precisely the same ; and as this Atheist 
asserts, that the existence, character, and ad- 
ministration of God remain a nonentity of the 
imagination, 6 while there is nothing before 
1 him but the consciousness of what passes 

* within, and the observation of what passes 
( without,' — so the c worth,' ' benevolence,' and 

* constancy' of the Christian witnesses, resting 
on evidence of the same kind, — evidence fur- 
nished neither by 6 consciousness,' nor 6 ob* 
1 servation,' must remain also ( a nonentity of 
€ the imagination.'* 

* It might be added, that even the existence of the witness^ 
es, as intelligent and moral beings, as well as their peculiar mor- 
al and intellectual character, must be considered by this Atheist 
as a ' nonentity.' ' It is evident,' (says Dr Reid, alluding to Mr 
Hume's reasoning, which proceeds upon the same principle as 
that advanced by Dr C.) — 4 it is evident, that according to this 
1 reasoning, we can have no evidence of mind or design in any 
1 of our fellow-men. How do I know that any man of my ac- 



60 



CONSEQUENCES OF THE 



2. The evidences of miracles and testimony 
being incapable then of making any impres- 

£ quaintance has understanding ? I never saw his understanding'. 

* I see only certain effects which my judgment leads me to con- 
' elude to be marks and tokens of it. But, says the sceptical 

* philosopher, you can conclude nothing from these tokens, unless 

* past experience has informed you that such tokens are always 

* joined with understanding. Alas ! Sir, it is impossible I can 

* ever have this experience. The understanding of another man 

* is no immediate object of sight, or of any other faculty which 

* God hath given me ; and unless I can conclude its existence 

* from tokens that are visible, I have no evidence that there is 

* understanding in any man. It seems then, that the man who 

* maintains that there is no force in the argument from final 

* causes, must, if he will be consistent, see no evidence of tlie 

* existence of any intelligent being but himself — Int. Powers, 

* Our conviction that other men are like ourselves, possessed 

* of thought and reason, together with all the judgments we pro- 

* nounce on their intellectual and moral characters, cannot, as is 
c evident, be resolved into an experimental perception of the 

* conjunction of different objects or events. They are inferen- 

* ces of design from its sensible effects.' — Stewart's Elements. 

Mr Hume's. general speculation concerning causation, with 
the imposing manner in which he urged the objection under con- 
sideration, gave it in his hands a character of novelty which by 
no means really belongs to it. In truth, the universal maxim of 
Solomon, • that there is no new thing under the sun,' might be 
very successfully illustrated by the permanent character of those 
sceptical objections which are brought forward from time to time 
against the theistical argument from final causes. Mr Hume's 
objection, reiterated by Br C, is precisely that which is put by 
Theophilus of Antioch into the mouth of Autolycus : — and the 



PRINCIPLES UNDER EXAMINATION. 61 



sion on the mind of the Atheist, who denies 
that from marks of design we are entitled to 
conclude the existence of a designing or in- 
telligent Cause; — it becomes our business 
next to inquire, whether by the exhibition of 
those evidences, conviction may be produced 
in the mind of one who rests his atheism on a 
different principle; and who recognizing the 
legitimacy of the inference, denies the fact 
that there are marks of design displayed by 
nature. It has already been remarked, that 

answer which TheopLilus gives, is the same with that which is 
returned by Reid and Stewart to the objection of Hume. * For 
' as the human soul is not the object of sight, but becomes known 

* by means of corporeal motions, — so neither can the Deity be 

* rendered visible to human eyes, but is seen and known by his 

* providence and his works.' — Ax>. Ait. Lib. 1. The same 
objection, as has been remarked by Mr Stewart, was urged by a 
more ancient sceptic than any of those abo\ementioned. 4 This 

* celebrated argument appears to me to be little more than an ara- 

* plification of that which Xenophon puts into the mouth of Aris- 
' todemus, in his conversation with Socrates concerning the exis- 
4 tence of the Deity. " I behold," says he, " none of those go- 
4 vemors of the world whom you speak of ; whereas here I see 
' artists actually employed in the execution of their respective 
1 works." The reply of Socrates, too, is in substance the same 

* with what has been since retorted on Philo by some of Mr 

* Hume's opponents. " Neither yet, Aristodemus, seest thou thy 

* soul, although it may well seem by thy manner of speaking 
4 that it is chdnce not reason w T hich governs thee. '^—Eiem. PhiU 
Hum. Mind. 

V 2 



62 CONSEQUENCES OF THE 



in the account Dr. C. gives of the intel- 
lectual constitution of his Atheist, there is 
one passage which seems to imply that this 
principle rather than the other, is that on 
which the rejection of the theistical argument 
from design is grounded. The passage is as 
follows : — c He sees nothing in the phenomena 

* around him, that can warrant him to believe 

* in the existence of a living and intelligent 

* principle, which gave birth and movement to 

* all things. He does not say that he would 

* refuse credit to the existence of God upon 
c sufficient evidence, but he says, that there are 
f not such appearances of design in nature, as 
c to supply him with that evidence.' * Are we 
bound from this passage to infer, that the in- 
tellectual Atheist recognises the legitimacy of 
reasoning from observation of effects to the 
existence and character of an ' invisible* effi- 
cient Cause, and that he thus brings to the 
investigation of Christian evidence, a prin- 
ciple, the unphilosophical and fallacious na- 
ture of which, Dr. C. has laboured to demon- 
strate ? If so, we shall have the less cause to 
wonder, that the Christian evidence should be 
represented as productive of conviction in his 
mind. Shall we suppose that this Atheist denies 



• I ISO. 



PRINCIPLES UNDER EXAMINATION. 63 



at once the existence of marks of design in 
nature, and the legitimacy of the inference 
founded on them ? Or shall we rather con- 
clude, that Dr. C. was himself but imperfectly 
acquainted with the intellectual constitution 
of the atheistical personage, whose existence 
he has feigned, and whose character he has 
attempted to describe ? 

One thing is certain ; — with the argument 
from design before him, the Atheist finds not 
a vestige of evidence for the existence of Deity, 
His c mind is in a state entirely neutral,' it is 
6 unfurnished with any previous conception. 5 
It is not that he demands demonstrative proof 
or moral certainty, and is dissatisfied, because 
he finds only probability in the conclusion^ 
that a Deity exists ; — there is no proof, no pro. 
bability, 6 no presumptions upon the subject.' * 
The proposition bears no other character, than 
6 the assertion that in a distant region of crea. 
' tion, there are beings who have the power of 
6 spontaneous movements in free spaces.' f 

We shall suppose then, that this total ab- 
sence of evidence proceeds from his having 
found no marks of design discernible in na- 
ture, and that we were formerly mistaken in 
resting his atheism upon the principle held by 
f 1 181, } 1 18Q 4 



64 



CONSEQUENCES OF THE 



Dr. C. We shall suppose that the Atheist 
puts entire confidence in that perception of 
the understanding, by which, from the occur, 
rence and character of phenomena, we attain 
knowledge of the existence and character of 
efficient causes ; — and that the strict neutra- 
lity of his mind regarding the question of 
God's existence, proceeds from his having 
found no appearances of design in nature. On 
one or the other of these principles, his a. 
theism, as has already been observed, must be 
rested. 

Although in ancient times, a very large 
proportion of the whole atheistical body was 
composed of those, who denied that appear- 
ances of design are found in nature, — it is be- 
lieved that their numbers are now reduced 
within very narrow compass. Indeed, so^nu- 
merous and striking are the connections, 
which modern science has shewn to exist be- 
tween all the parts of the universe which are 
subjected to human observation, — so manifest 
is the wisdom displayed in the various ar- 
rangements and combinations of parts, — and so 
excellent the adaptation of means to ends*,— 

* * The sceptical reasonings of Philo, therefore, do not, like 

* those of the ancient Epicureans, hinge in the least on alleged 

* disorders and imperfections in the universe, but entirely on lh.% 



PRINCIPLES UNDER EXAMINATION. 



63 



that those who still deny that decisive appear- 
ances of design exist in nature, may perhaps, 
without injustice, be ranked in the class of 
disingenuous disputants, with whom it is in 
vain to reason, and who must be left to the 
enjoyment of their own speculations. It is 
probably, therefore, a peculiar characteristic 
of our author's Atheist, that he has not the 
slightest prejudice of any sort against theism, 
but is p rfectly ready to embrace it, snouid 

e impossibility, iu a case to which experience furnishes nothing 
e parallel or analogous, of rendering intelligence and design ma- 
1 nifest to our faculties by their sensible effects. In thus shifting 
1 his ground from that occupied by his predecessors, Philo seems 

* to me to have abandoned the only post from which it was of 
■ much importance for his adversaries to dislodge him. The 

* logical subtilties formerly quoted about experience and be- 
' jief. (even supposing them to remain unanswered.) are but 
1 little calculated to shake the authority of principles, on which 
£ we are every moment forced to judge and to act by the exi- 

; gencies of life. For tills change in the tactics of modem seep* 
4 ties, we are evidently, in great measure, if not wholly in- 
' debted to the lustre thrown on the order of nature, by the 

* physical researches of the two last centuries.' 

, Stewart's Elem. 

According to the mew now taken of our Atheist's principles, 
this change which has been effected by the progress of science, 
must to Dr. C. appear extremely inauspicious to Christianity: 
since that 1 understanding is in a state of high preparation* for 
its reception, which holds principles deserted as untenable by 
atheists themselves, 



66 



CONSEQUENCES OF THB 



he find i satisfying and appropriate evidenced 
It will be found, however, that Christian evi- 
dence, circumscribed as it is by Dr. C. cannot 
be deemed by this Atheist, divested as he is 
of all prejudice, either appropriate or satis- 
factory. 

On this Atheist, constituted as we now find 
him, our author presses the argument from 
miracles. 6 There is nothing in the ordinary 
* phenomena of nature to infer a God/ 1 Do 
c these extraordinary phenomena supply him 
c with no argument ?' The nature of the evi- 
dence, let it be observed, is in both cases the 
same. Phenomena are submitted to his ob- 
servation, and he is desired to infer the exis- 
tence of a cause, in which intelligence and 
power are combined. That the phenomena 
of the first class display numerous and strik- 
ing appearances of intelligence and power, 
has almost ceased to be a subject of dispute; 
yet the Atheist perceives no such appearances ; 
his understanding, nevertheless, is in a high 
state of preparation, it seems, for perceiving 
such appearances in the other class of pheno- 
mena. His negative mind can discover in the 
processes of nature, no appearances which 
give even probability to the conclusion, that, 



"PRINCIPLES UNDER EXAMINATION. #^ 



they were instituted by any thing different 
from the inert instruments employed in con- 
ducting them ; nor from investigation of na- 
ture's laws, can his understanding perceive 
any traces of a power higher than that of the 
subjects of these laws ; yet from the counter- 
action of these laws and processes, he is ex- 
pected immediately to perceive the existence 
of God. On the ' blank surface' of his mind, 
observation of the celestial mechanism has 
inscribed no trace of a powerful and skiiful 
Architect ; — he has viewed the admirable con- 
struction of the planetary system, has investi- 
gated the composition of the forces employed, 
and the mode of dispensing light and heat ; 
and he can find no more reason for conclud- 
ing that a Cause in which power and skill are 
combined exists, than for the random fi asser- 
' tion, that in some distant region, there are 
1 tracts of space, which teem only with ani- 
4 mated beings, who without being supported 
4 on a firm surface, have the power ( f sponta- 
4 neous movement in free spaces/ Yet this 
is the person, whose intellect is in the best 
possible condition for being convinced of the 
existence ot such a cause, by a 6 voice from 
\faeaven!' He has contemplated the skatul 



68 



CONSEQUENCES OF THE 



mechanism of the human body, — the various 
combinations of parts united for he produc- 
tion of one common end, and that end the 
welfare of the whole. He has sought a solu- 
tion of the great question of a First Cause ; he 
has applied to the solution of that question, 
the declination of atoms, the appetencies of 
molecules, the energies of nervous fibriUre, 
with all the other famous hypotheses of a si- 
milar nature, on the one hand ; and on the 
other, the almighty power of an All-wise and 
Benignant Cause ; and has maintained un- 
moved his strict neutrality of mind. And 
yet, with all this unnatural dulness of percep- 
tion, he no sooner observes c health' given to 
' to the diseased' 6 on the impulse of a voli- 
€ tion,'* than he immediately perceives c the 
€ existence of a God !' That mind which 
judges it neither probable nor improbable 
that life is originally given by a living Being, 
is in the best condition for admitting the exis- 
tence of that Being, from having witnessed 
restoration of life ! And the understanding 
of that person, who having examined the ad- 
mirable construction of the eye, finds no pro- 
bability in the conclusion that it was made to 
$ee with, is in a hi^h state of preparation for 



PRINCIPLES UNDER EXAMINATION. 69 



being convinced of the truth of theistical con- 
clusions, by the miraculous gift of i sight to 
< the blind 

It thus appears, that supposing the principle 
under consideration to be that upon which this 
sceptical personage rests his atheism, the 
fiction introduced by our author for exhibit- 
ing the excellence of his scheme of evidence, 
is altogether incongruous. If it was his object 
merely to exhibit the external evidence as su- 
perior in degree to the natural argument and 
internal evidences, nothing worse imagined 
can easily be conceived. — But let us admit, 
that the Atheist, without divesting himself of 
his ' negative* attainments, may find positive 
evidence, in the miraculous phenomena sub- 
mitted to him, of the existence of an invisible 
efficient Cause : — the question next occurs, 
what are the qualities which he finds reason 
to ascribe to that cause ?— We shall for the 
sake of argument admit, that he finds ground 
to conclude that the cause which operates 
these extraordinary effects is possessed of 
intelligence, and of a high degree of power. 
The power possessed by this cause, is suffi- 
cient to suspend certain laws of nature,— but 
it is not clear that there is evidence before the 
Atheist sufficient to lead him to the conclu- 

G 



10 



CONSEQUENCES OP THE 



sion that these phenomena are the work of an 
Almighty Being, or even of a ' power' in all 
respects 6 superior to nature.' * The Atheist 
is a person who walks very strictly by the dic- 
tates of 6 experience/ and of course possesses 
all Dr C.'s distaste for such conclusions as 
are branded in his work with the title of ' spe- 
culation/ and 4 assumption/ — The mightiest 
displays of power in nature, are those which 
are exhibited in the motions of the planetary 
bodies ; but in the miraculous phenomena 
which Dr C. submits to the examination of his 
Atheist, it cannot be maintained that power is 
displayed equal in extent to that by which 
the planetary motions are effected. The A- 
theist is therefore not obliged to conclude the 
existence of * a power superior to nature.' That 
the phenomena submitted to him, carry in 
themselves legitimate evidence of the existence 
of an Almighty Being, is by no means ques- 
tioned ; but we deny that such evidence can 
be apparent to this negative Atheist. Let it 
be remembered, that he has 4 no previous con- 
• captions' upon the subject of Deity. There 
may be one God, or there mav be many and 

* The principles of Hume and of Dr C. inevitably lead to 
the universal conclusion drawn by the former— that 'the effect is 
e tfee measure of the power.' 



PRINCIPLES UNDER EXAMINATION. 71 

of the character belonging to Him or them, he 
has not the most remote conception. He is 
equally ready to embrace all opinions upon 
the subject ; and determined to embrace no 
opinion without i satisfying and appropriate 
* evidence.' We therefore deny, that even u- 
pon the admission we have now made, the 
Atheist can obtain from the phenomena in 
question, evidence on which to build any far- 
ther conclusion than that a power somewhere 
exists, capable of controlling, at particular 
times, some of nature s laws. But whether this 
power is the same with that to which na- 
ture's processes may be referribie; — whether 
it is the attribute of a Being superior upon the 
whole, or inferior, to Him who may be engag- 
ed in conducting these processes — whether 
the Being operating miraculous phenomena 
is of moral character — benevolent or malig- 
nant — in alliance with the power which regu- 
lates nature, or hostile to that power : — all 
these are questions, of which the negative A- 
theist can find no satisfactory solution in the 
phenomena before him, — and which remain 
to him involved in total obscurity. 

Having thus ascertained the conclusion, be- 
yond which it is impossible that the argument 
from miracles can carry the Atheist,— let us ex- 
G 2 



72 



CONSEQUENCES OF THE 



amine whether the obvious deficiency of evi- 
dence afforded by that argument, is supplied 
by the testimony of 6 the ostensible agent in 
c all these wonderful transactions.'— It is not 
necessary at present to dispute the position, 
that the principles of this Atheist, unlike those 
of his predecessor which we formerly investi- 
gated, admit of his placing confidence in hu- 
man testimony • It must be remembered, how- 
ever, that it is solely from experience that he 
derives this confidence. He acknowledges 
no other principle on which faith in testimony 
is founded. He c has experience of man, but 
he has no experience of God,' nor of any ra- 
tional being different in any respect from 
mere man. He cannot, in consistency with 
his principles, form the least conception of the 
credibility due to testimony, emitted by any 
being of different constitution, prompted by 
different motives, or impelled by different 
powers from those of which he has had experi - 
ence. What, then, is the testimony to him, 
of a personage declaring himself to be the Son 
of God, who was with God, and who is God ? 
Or of men declaring themselves impelled by 
the influence of divine inspiration ? It is ob- 
vious that he is^ incapacitated from attaching 
any value to testimony of this sort. < He 



PRINCIPLES UNDER EXAMINATION. 73 



< cannot bring his antecedent information into 
£ play upon this question,' any more than u~ 
pon the question of the divine character. 
Proceeding strictly, as the principles he holds 
oblige him to do, upon experience, he can form 
no judgment of the character, sentiments, 
and designs of such persons, from any 6 na- 
' tural signs' of qualities, which he may have 
found to be trustworthy in the case of 
man : for the persons from whom this testi- 
mony proceeds, possess powers and qualities 
of very different nature from any with which 
his experience has made him conversant. 

But it may be alleged, that the persons 
emitting this testimony were in outward 
appearance mere men : they at first repre- 
sented themselves in no other light :— and 
in no . other capacity does Dr C. represent 
them to the Atheist. Suppose we should 
accept of this representation, and admit, 
that upon this footing their testimony may 
be held credible by the Atheist : what ef- 
fect upon his faith will be produced by the 
information which he must subsequently re- 
ceive, that the intellectual character of 6 the 
* ostensible agents' is in fact such, as had it 
been previously known, must have precluded 
him from giving credit to their testimony ?— 



74 



CONSEQUENCES OF THE 



And what a view is here given to us of Chris- 
tian testimony, when it appears necessary to 
conceal an important part of the charac- 
ter of the witnesses, in order that conviction 
may he produced in the mind of one who is 
1 in a high state of preparation' for receiving 
it? But leaving these, and other objec- 
tions against the competency of the Atheist*s 
understanding to receive conviction, — let us 
suppose that he has found reason to infer from 
the miraculous phenomena, the existence of a 
power in certain respects superior to nature ; 
and to believe from the testimony of the wit- 
nesses, that the doctrine they were about to 
promulgate is derived from that power. Here, 
according to Dr C/s theory of evidence, the 
exhibition of the 6 credentials' is concluded* 
These are the only particulars, of which, ac- 
cording to him, human reason is entitled to 
judge. The whole 6 information' given by the 
witnesses,— the doctrine ] they teach respect- 
ing the character and proceedings of the pow- 
er from whom they derive their commission, — 
and the intimations they give of the relations 
in which men stand to Him, form, according 
to our author, no part of the evidence : and 
for the best reason possible. If the ' informa- 
tion,' or any part of it, enters into the compc» 



PRINCIPLES UNDER EXAMINATION. 75 

sition of the evidence, it must be submitted 
to reason, and must be judged of according 
to the principles of reason ; consequences 
which re-admit the discussion of all those de- 
istical objections excluded by Dr C, and sub- 
vert his whole scheme of evidence. He is 
therefore at great pains to exclude the doc- 
trines taught by the witnesses, from falling 
in any shape under the cognizance of reason. 
c After we have established Christianity to be 
c an authentic message from God, upon these 
f historical grounds, — when the reason and 

* experience of man entitle him to form his 
6 conclusions, — nothing remains for us but an 
6 unconditional surrender of the mind to the 
i subject of the message. We have a right to 
1 sit in judgment over the credentials of Hea- 
c ven's ambassador, but we have no right to 
6 sit in judgment over the information he gives 

* us.' * The 6 information given by Heaven's 
1 ambassador,' forms therefore no part of the 
i credentials and can form no part of them 
without subverting Dr C's system, and frus- 
trating its object. — The Atheist then has be- 
come a believer in Christianity : — that is, 
he now believes, upon the only legitimate 
evidence which Christianity, according to 



76 



CONSEQUENCES OF THE 



Dr. C. possesses, — that there exists a pow- 
er in some respects superior to nature^ 
and that ' the ostensible agent/ is com- 
missioned by that power, — and he is now 
prepared to give full credit to whatever infor- 
mation that agent may give him. Let it be 
remembered, that he has no knowledge of the 
character of that power by whom the c agent' 
is employed. He has no ' previous concep- 
tions' on the subject. He has derived no in- 
formation from the 6 agent and cannot con- 
sider his information as a ground of faith, even 
had it been already communicated. He has 
no reason to believe that the agent is not him- 
self deceived. He believes therefore in the 
truth of a 6 message' of which he knows no- 
thing, because that message is sent by a c power* 
of whose supremacy he knows nothing,— of 
whose relation to man as his Creator or Go- 
vernor he knows nothing, — and of whose mo- 
ral character he has no conception. { Though 
6 the power which presided there, should be 
' an arbitrary, an unjust, or a malignant Be- 
' ing, all this may startle a Deist, but it will not 

* prevent a consistent Atheist from acquies- 
6 cing in any legitimate inference, to which 

* the miracles of the gospel, viewed in the 

* simple light of historical facts, may chance 



?RIKCIPLES UNDER EXAMINATION. 77 



* to carry to him/ * Now, the - legitimate in- 

* ference to which these facts have chanced to 
1 carry' the Atheist, is this, — that a c message' 
sent by a 6 Power which may be a malignant 
1 Being,' is certainly true^ for no other reason 
than that it is sent by such a Power. This 
4 consistent Atheist,' who has so strong a dis- 
taste for every thing that bears the character 
of 1 speculation ' — who in all the conclusions 
fee forms, walks rigidly by c the light of ex- 
1 perience,' — who rejects the argument for 
the existence of God founded on appear- 
ances of design in nature, because 6 the phe- 

* nomena sit so loose and unconnected with 

* that Intelligent Being to whom they have 

* been referred as their origin, that he does 
i not feel himself entitled from these pheno- 
1 mena, to ascribe any existence, any char- 
1 acter, any attributes, or any method of ad- 

* ministration to such a Being,' f — this 6 con- 
< sistent* personage 6 chances' now to admit it 
as a f legitimate inference,' that a message 
must be true, because it is sent by one who 
may be 'a malignant Being!' — The infer- 1 
ence, however, whether legitimate or not, is 
made ; — the • credentials' are found complete; 
— and the convert is now, and not till now* 

* f 181, f Ibid. 



78 



CONSEQUENCES OF THE 



prepared for the enunciation of the doctrines ; 
the nature and character of which, it is to be 
observed, are excluded from every degree of 
influence whether prospective or retrospective 
upon his faith. Among the doctrines now 
communicated to the convert, are the * attri- 
1 butes* of the i Power' or 1 Being/ by whom 
1 the ostensible agent' is commissioned. Of 
these, the first which is declared by Dr. C. i» 
Veracity. We have ail along omitted any in- 
quiry into the process by means of which this 
peculiarly constructed personage may have 
acquired moral ideas : Although (as may af- 
terwards appear,) it might have been shewn 
that the annunciation of veracity, justice, 
mercy, as the attributes of this Being, could 
inscribe no idea whatever on 6 the blank sur. 
8 face* of this convert's mind, and that such 
qualities could appear to him in no other light 
than that of 8 nonentities of the imagination/ 
We admit, however, that lie is capable of an- 
nexing the appropriate idea to the term ve- 
racity. But there is, by supposition, no pre- 
vious probability apparent to the convert, win- 
veracity, rather than its opposite, should be 
the characteristic quality of the i Power' in 
question : and we are at perfect liberty to 



PRINCIPLES UNDER EXAMINATION. 79 



suppose that the attribute announced is Deceit* 
Yet after the annunciation of deceit as the 
leading attribute, the faith of the ' consistent 
4 Atheist' remains, and according to Dr C. y s 
principles must remain, unshaken. — Such is the 
6 understanding,' which is declared by this 
advocate of revelation, c to be in a high state 
c of preparation for taking in Christianity !* 



i 



PEIST1CAL OBJECTIONS 



CHAP. II. 



THE DEISTICAL OBJECTIONS WHICH DR C. AIMS 
AT REMOVING BY A NEW AND SUMMARY ME- 
THOD, STILL REMAIN TO BE DISCUSSED AND 
REPELLED IN THE MANNER HE DEEMS St 7 * 
PERFLUOUS. 



If the consequences now traced from the 
principles held Dr. C. are legitimate, it 
may seem oflitth importance to enquire whe- 
ther that class of infidel objections, which it 
is his aim to repel without the ' superfluous' 
trouble of discussing their 6 reasonableness,* 
are in reality removed or not by his system 
of Christian Evidence. Such an enquiry, 
may notwithstanding be useful, for confirm- 
ing the Internal Evidence, with those ' ante- 
* cedent' theological conclusions on which it 
is founded, as it may serve still further to ex- 



In* OT REMOVED. 



hibit the inconsistency of those reasonings 
which have for their object its subversion. 

From the nature of the general principles 
advanced by Dr. C, it might seem that if 
these principles are sound, no ground is left 
on which to build objections directed against 
the character of a revelation which is sup- 
ported by external evidence. This is very 
far, however, from being the case. When 
these principles are accurately examined, and 
the limitations to which our author subjects 
them are attended to, it will be found that al- 
most all the objections which it is his aim to 
dismiss without examination, may fairly claim, 
even from him, a discussion of their 6 reason- 
c ableness/ 

1. The sweeping aphorism, repeatedly ex- 
pressed in such terms as these : — 6 We have 
c no right to sit in judgment over the infor- 
( mation given us by Heaven's ambassadors- 
is subjected to the following exception : i it 
' is very true that if the truths which he de. 
c livered lay within the field of human obser- 
6 vation, he brings himself under the tribunal 
6 of our antecedent knowledge. — Were he to 
' tell us, that the bodies of the planetary sys- 
* tern moved in orbits which are purely cir- 
% cular, we would oppose to him the observa- 

* § 192. 
H 



DE1ST1CAL OBJECTIONS 



c tionsand measurements of astronomy.'* Here 
Dr. C, asserts, that whatever may be the con- 
clusiveness of the external evidences, or the 
1 credentials,' as he stiles them, of E Heaven's 
1 ambassador ;' — yet if the information he gives 
is contradicted by the results of human obser- 
vations, that circumstance justifies opposition 
to his dictates. It is impossible to understand 
his words as conveying any other meaning. 
And the astronomical fact which he produces 
in illustration of his position, warrants the 
conclusion, that such opposition is in his 
opinion justifiable when grounded upon re- 
sults, which are not very obviously or directly 
the dictates of mere observation. — In conse- 
quence of thus limiting his general principle, 
Dr. C. is precluded from summarily dismiss- 
ing, by a reference tc the strength of the ex- 
ternal evidence, certain objections which 
have actually been brought against the di- 
vine authority of Revelation. Thus he is ob- 
liged to admit, that the objections of Bohng- 
broke and others, founded on the alleged false- 
hood of the information given by Revelation, 
respecting the motions of the planetary bodies, 
are sufficient if well founded to warrant oppo- 
sition to its reception. All such objections 



'SOY ilEIuOYfcD. 



53 



must, even upon his system, be met upon the 
ordinary ground of their truth and reason- 
bieness. Again he declares, that < were he 
(the ambassador of Heaven,) to tell us, that 
€ we were perfect men, because we were tree 
1 from passion, and loved our neighbours as 
c ourselves, we would oppose to him the his- 
4 tory oi our lives, and the deeply seated con- 
* sciousness of our own imperfections.'* Here 
it is admitted that memory and consciousness, 
no less tfian the powers of perception, are 
trust-worthy faculties: and thatif their dictates 
arc contradicted by information, contained 
in a religious system supported by external 
evidence, legitimate ground is furnished for 
opposition to that system. Hence all objec- 
tions which allege that revealed religion gives 
false information regarding the moral consti- 
tution of mankind, and the extent of human 
corruption, muse still be discussed in the ac- 
customed manner by reference to facts and to 
consciousness. — Supposing a revelation to in- 
form us, that a conviction of its truth is high- 
ly favourable to the temporal happiness of 
man : — such objections as allege that this re- 
velation is in fact destructive of the peace of 
the individual, subversive of the order of so- 

* 5 192: 



'84 



BEISTICAL OBJECTIOKS 



ciety, and in many respects hostile to human 
happiness, are sufficient if well founded to 
j ustify opposition to its reception, and must 
be made the subject of 6 controversy.' — Sup- 
posing such a revelation to inform us that 
its doctrines are highly favourable to the 
advancement of human virtue — while it is 
objected by infidels that their effect on the 
contrary is, to give a loose to vicious pro- 
pensities — it must be admitted that to dis- 
cuss the merits of this objection in the or- 
dinary way, is neither 6 superfluous' nor 
* uncalled for.' 

2. It is indispensibly necessary to the sup- 
port of Dr C.'s theory of evidence, that hu- 
man reason should be adjudged incapable of 
forming any trust-worthy conclusions, respect- 
ing the existence, character, or procedure of 
the 4 invisible God :' because, if any such 
conclusions can in the absence of Revelation 
be formed, they must be admitted to furnish 
an insuperable obstacle to the reception of 
any pretended revelation which contradicts 
them. Supposing a case to happen, in which 
theological conclusions of a legitimate nature 
formed by unassisted reason, are contradicted 
by a pretended revelation supported by satis- 
factory external evidence — in such a case, 



NOT REMOVED. 



35 



entire scepticism must be the consequence. 
This, however, it may be said, is an impossi- 
ble supposition. But why, we ask, Is it an 
impossible supposition ? The answ er seems 
to be, that no power, no intelligence, caa 
make each of two propositions true, which 
human reason, in its legitimate exercise, finds 
contradictory to each other. This axiom, 
however, is unfounded, unless the distinction 
between truth and falsehood is one which is not 
Merely apparent to human reason, but founded 
in the nature of things . And if such a distinc- 
tion exists in the nature of things, we have 
an affinity established between human reason 
and the highest possible intelligence, which 
undoubtedly affords support to certain theo- 
logical conclusions. The above supposition 
cannot be pronounced impossible ; — the case 
supposed cannot be considered as ( iegiti- 
< mately carrying us the length of scepti- 
f eism/* — it cannot be considered as neutral- 
izing the claims of the revelation, — without 
admitting that if an intelligent First Cause 
exists, his intellectual character must in certain 
respects be the same with that which he lias 
bestowed on human beings. — Thus it would 
seem that conceptions of the character of 
Deity, are furnished by those very principles 
M ur. 

H 2 



86 



DEISTICAL OBJECTIONS 



upon which the conclusion must be supported 
that no such conceptions can be formed, 

But the principle that human reason is in- 
capable of forming any true conceptions of 
the character or procedure of the Deity, is 
restricted within a still narrower field of ope- 
ration, by an admission already brought into 
view. — Dr C. alludes to miracles as consti- 
tuting 6 a special mark' or 6 watch-word which 
6 we previously knew could be given by none 
; but God :•* — and it has been shewn, that this 
previous knowledge is indispensibly necessary, 
in order to reader miracles conclusive evi- 
dence of a commission from the Supreme Au- 
thor of nature. Theknowledgehereascribed to 
man, is more extensive than may on a cursory 
view be supposed. It embraces these among 
other points — that no unintelligent principle 
can operate according to any other laws than 
those which regulate the present system of 
things on this globe— that there are no beings 
superior to man, excepting God, capable of 
suspending certain laws of nature — and that 
it is contrary to reason to suppose that two 
or more divine Principles or Intelligences^ of 
the same or opposite moral character, share 
the government of the universe. — By what 
means we may in the absence of Revelation 



InOT removed. 



3/ 



attain all this knowledge, after we have been 
persuaded to 6 disown natural religion' as c a 
speculative system,' and to acknowledge that 
6 there is nothing perhaps more thoroughly 
6 beyond the cognizance of the human faeul- 
i ties than the truths of religion and the ways 
* of that mighty and invisible Being who is 
' the object of it,' it is for Dr C. to point 
out. The fact, however, that by the exercise 
of reason, or by some other means, we actu- 
ally possess all this knowledge, he asserts : 
and not only asserts, but produces in the 
above passage, as constituting the foundation 
of the argument from miracles, and as en- 
tering of course into the composition of the 
legitimate evidence of Christianity. But as 
human i reason has a right to sit in judgment' 
over every thing offered in the shape of evi- 
dence, — every thing forming part of the 6 cre- 
dentials,' — it follows that all objections to 
the theological conclusions above stated, must 
be discussed at the bar of reason. Hence 
notwithstanding his dismissal of natural theo- 
logy as superfluous if not injurious to the in- 
terests of Christianity, Dr C. must find that 
he is still bound to sustain, on principles of 
reason, some of her most important conclu- 
sions. He must either acknowledge that he 



88 DEISTICAL objections 



has brought forward evidence which upon his 
own principles is fallacious, or be prepared 
to advocate the cause of natural religion by 
shewing, that material principles or elements 
possess no real power or energy, or at least 
that they can operate according to no other 
laws than those which presently regulate the 
world which we inhabit : points which involve 
the discussion of all those atheistical hypo- 
theses, which in ancient and modern times 
have been proposed, to account for the origin 
of the universe. He must be prepared to 
expose the errors of those who have ascribed 
not only to the Supreme Being, but to sub- 
ordinate spirits the power of operating super- 
natural effects ; and to examine and over- 
throw all those sophistical reasonings by which 
modern infidels have maintained the Mani- 
chean doctrine. — These are discussions which, 
according to his own shewing, cannot be 
classed under the title of c superfluous con- 

* troversv.' 

j 

3. Dr C. seems aware that it is necessary 
to the support of his sytem of Christian evi- 
dence,, that all moral distinctions naturally 
perceptible to man, as well as theological 
conclusions which his reason is capable of 
forming, should possess no other character 
than that of 6 speculation/ 6 assumption/ 



NOT REMOVED. 



* taste,' 1 fancy — because if such distinc- 
tions possess a necessary and universal cha- 
racter, they must come ' into play' (accord- 
ing to his expression) when the credibility of 
Revelation is under discussion. — If these mo- 
ral distinctions are illusory, — if they exist 
only relatively to human intellect and con- 
dition, — then we are not entitled from our 
perception of them to predicate of the Deity 
riny moral attributes : nor to hesitate about 
receiving an offered revelation, on account 
of any qualities which it may ascribe to Him. 
If on the other ban J, the moral distinctions 
perceptible by us, exist in the nature of 
things, — if they are eternal, universal, and 
immutable; — it follows irresistibly that no 
external evidence whatever can give credibi- 
lity to a revelation which ascribes immoral 
qualities or acts to the Supreme Being. — But 
the former supposition carries in its train a 
very formidable difficulty. If these moral 
perceptions of ours are fallacious— if they 
do not inform us of an eternal and immutable 
distinction between right and wrong — where 
is it possible to find a foundation, on which 
any divine revelation may build a claim to 
conviction or obedience r — Net certainly upon 
the moral qualities of the Being from whom 



DEISTICAL OBJECTION'S 



it proceeds : because by supposition the rno~ 
ral distinctions we are previously acquainted 
with, are either wholly illusory, or such as 
respect only the sentiments and actions of 
man. Is it replied, that the revelation itself 
informs us of the existence of moral perfec- 
tions in the character of the Being from 
whom it proceeds? The reply is not only 
subversive of Dr C.'s system, which exclude* 
the information afforded by revelation from 
forming an\ pan of the evidence, but is a 
palpable petitio pnncipii, For why do we 
give credit to tins information I Because it 
is communicated to us bj a Being oi all mo- 
ral perfection. The reply therefore assigns 
as the foundation of our belief in the moral 
perfections of God, — our belief in his moral 
perfections. — Is it alleged that this belief is 
founded on the external evidence? — This is 
also reasoning in a circle : for the external 
evidence, as has already been shewn, is in- 
conclusive unless founded on the same prin- 
ciple* — Nay, it is farther obvious, that to 
those who question the immutability and uni- 
versality of moral distinctions perceptible by 
man, — it is in vain that revelation proffers 
information respecting the veracity, justice, 
goodness, or other moral attributes of God« 



NOT REMOVED. 



For, if these qualities as they exist in other 
beings, may be essentially different from what 
they are as the} 7 exist in man — if they are in 
their nature resolvable into their opposites, 
into each other, or into any other qualities 
whatsoever — it follows that when attributes 
are predicated of the Supreme Being, under 1 
the terms veracity, justice, &c. no informa- 
tion whatever is conveyed to man ; revelation 
has no basis of truth whereon to rest ; and 
the terms in which she describes the moral 
character of the Deity are unintelligible, * 

As it seems impossible, then, to conduct 
an argument, which has for its object the 
establishment of the authority of revelation, 
without admitting the immutability of mo- 
ral distinctions perceived by the human fa- 
culties ; — it may be readily supposed that 
such admissions, however fatal to Dr C's 
scheme of evidence, will be virtually made 

* 1 The immutability of moral distinctions has been called ia 
' question, not only by sceptical writers, but by some philoso- 
* phers who have adopted their doctrine with the pious design of 

4 magnifying the perfections of the Deity. Such authors cer- 
6 tainly do not recollect, that what they add to Ms power and 
e majesty, they take away from his moral attributes ; for if moral 
s distinctions be not immutable and eternal, it is absurd to speak 

5 of the goodness or of the justice oi God.' — Stewart's Outlines 
of Moral Philosophy. 



92 



MISTICAL OBJECTIONS 



in the course of his work. Accordingly 
we have the following passage. — c A message 
€ has come to us bearing on its forehead every 
€ character of authenticity ; and is it right now 
6 that every question of our faith or of our du- 
c ty should be committed to the capricious 
6 variations of this man's taste or of that man's 
' fancy ?' * Although the terms f taste' and 
c fancy' are here used, the scope of our au- 
thor's reasoning evidently is, to disqualify the 
intellectual and moral faculties of man, from 
forming any judgment of matters of faith or 
duty proposed to him by Revelation : and 
the argument consists of an appeal to reason 
and conscience in proof of its conclusiveness ! 
Passing over the singular structure of this ar- 
gument — let us attend to the nature of the 
sentiment appealed to. 4 Is it right? to sub- 
mit matters of faith and duty composing a di- 
vine revelation, to the judgment of man ? — 
Why is such a proceeding right or wrong ?— 
No other reason can be given, than that we 
perceive it to be so : and if it be denied that 
we perceive an immutable distinction between 
right and wrong, we can give no judgment on 
the appeal, and the question remains unsolv- 
ed. For, 1st, in regard to matters of faith* — 
A revelation resting its sole claim to reception 
* I 186. 



NOT REMOVED. 



©n the authority of a Superior Being, cannot 
possibly command the assent of rational crea- 
tures, although accompanied with the mostam- 
pie demonstrations of power, unless it has been 
previously ascertained that knowledge and ve- 
racity also are his attributes. Power may en- 
force obedience — and various considerations 
may determine rational beings to yield that 
obedience which is required. But the produc- 
tion of conviction is not the object of power. — ■ 
As the veracity, therefore, of the Superior Be- 
ing never can be proved without acknowledg- 
ing the immutability of the moral distinctions 
perceived by us; so information, the truth of 
which rests solely on this authority, never can 
consistently become the object of faith, in the 
mind of one who denies the immutability of 
those distinctions. — 2d y In regard to matters 
of duty or obedience : — had the question been, 
Is it prudent to hesitate about obeying in- 
junctions issued by a Superior Being of great 
power, until we are made acquainted with his 
character and claims, &c. ? — such a question 
might have been resolved in the negative, 
without any reference to the immutability of 
moral distinctions. But the question, < Is it 
4 right V is capable of no such solution : — 
(or if the term < right' is understood in that 
I 



DEI.STICAL OBJECTIONS 



loose sense in which it is in common language 
sometimes used, as synonymous with prudent 
— the soluti m alluded to, it may observed, is 
attended with consequences which render it 
incapable of being employed by any advocate 
of revelation,*) The question of 6 right' even 
as it regea'ds obedience, can only be determin- 
ed by reference to our moral perceptions ; 
and unless it can be shewn that man is under 
a moral obligation to obey the will of a being 
who, for aught we know, is possessed of no 
moral character — or who is c arbitrary, unjust, 
' and malignant,' — it never can be decided as 
Dr C. anticipates, without recognizing the im- 
mutability of moral distinctions perceived by 
roan. 

It has now, it is hoped, been rendered suffi- 
ciently apparent, that in this passage our au- 
thor has acknowledged, (not directly indeed, 
but by necessary consequence) the immutabi- 
lity of moral distinctions — a principle which 
forms an insuperable barrier against the ad- 
mission of every revelation which attributes 
to the Deity, no moral character ; or immoral 

* 4 The system which makes virtue a mere matter of pru- 
1 dence, leads to tbe conclusion, that a being independently and 
4 completely happy cann*t have any moral perceptions or any 
* moral attributes.' — Stew art's Outlines. 



NOT REMOVED. 



95 



qualities and acts ; or which represents him 
as prescribing services or enjoining actions of 
immoral nature. As Dr C. has deemed it pro- 
per to acknowledge this principle, by entering 
an appeal to it in proof of his own conclusions, 
every other conclusion legitimately deducibie 
from it must be acknowledged also. And as 
consequences flowing from this principle have 
been assumed into the Evidence of Christiani- 
ty byDr C, and employed in producing con- 
viction of its truth, — so other consequencesfol- 
lowing from it, must be allowed to affect that 
evidence. While therefore, on the one hand, 
the correspondence between such consequen- 
ces, and the Christian system of doctrine and 
morals, must be held to form legitimate evi- 
dence of the truth of that system, — all objec- 
tions to Christianity on the other, grounded 
on alleged discrepancy between its doctrines 
or morals, and this principle with its conse- 
quences, — possess a just title to have their 
merits discussed on the grounds of reason, 
and cannot be summarily dismissed by refer- 
ence to the external evidence. Now it hap- 
pens that the greater part of those objections, 
which Dr C. is desirous of dismissing in this 
summary manner, are grounded upon this 
principle. His appeal to it, therefore, sub- 



96 



J}£IS7ICAL OBJECTIONS 



jects him to the necessity of entering into al 1 
those controversies with Deists, respecting the 
moral character of the Christian system, which 
he represents as superfluous and uncalled for ; 
the same appeal virtually recognises the le- 
gitimacy of the internal evidence, which he 
disclaims as fallacious ; and exhibits his gene- 
ral scheme of Christian Evidence, as founded 
on principles, by the operation of which it is 
overthrown. 

4. Dr C. represents the unity of mind and 
purpose ascribed to Jesus Christ, as a c most 
' striking evidence' of the truth of his reli- 
gion.* i We see no shifting of doctrine or sen- 
' timent, with a view to accommodate to new 
* and unexpected circumstances.' It follows 
from the adoption of this evidence, that he 
must consider all 4 shifting of doctrine or sen- 
c timent^ with a view to accommodate to cir- 
' cumstances,' as affording justifiable ground 
of opposition to Christianity; an admission 
which furnishes an additional limitation to his 
general position, that ' we have no right to sit 
' in judgment over the information given us 
' by Heaven's ambassador.' It hence appears, 
that reason is entitled thus to sit in judgment, 
with a view to discover whether, among the 
inspired publishers of Christianity, any discre* 
* $ 61. 



NOT REMOVED. 



ST 



pancy of c sentiment' or variation of doctrine 
is discoverable^ for which sinister motives are 
apparent. Every one knows the attempts 
which have been made by infidels, particular- 
ly by Bolingbroke, Chubb, and their followers, 
to set in opposition to one another the Gos- 
pel of our Saviour, and that of the Apostle 
Paul. Numerous have been the objections 
brought against Christianity, founded on al- 
leged discordancy among its doctrines and 
its precepts. By employing this species of 
evidence, our Author opens for himself a field 
of / controversy,' which his general principles 
appeared to have shut up. It is not indeed 
easy to assign limits to this field ; or to pre-, 
elude any of , those deistical objections, which 
represent the doctrines of Christianity as at 
variance with the conclusions of natural theo- 
logy, from forcing their way into it. For as 
all those conclusions are found asserted in cer- 
tain passages of Scripture, whatever other 
passages may be considered as expressive of 
doctrines contradictory to those of natural 
theology, may be represented as contradic- 
tory to doctrines contained in the gospel it- 
self. It seems only necessary therefore to 
change the form of the objection, and to in- 
dent some plausible motive to account for the 
2 2 



98 DEISTICAL OBJECTIONS, &C. 

alleged inconsistency) in order to enable it to 
bring forward the charge of 6 a shifting of 
4 doctrine or sentiment, with a view to accom- 
i modate to new or unexpected circumstances 
a shape, which would appear to entitle it to 
enter the lists of legitimate c controversy.' 

Thus, we cannot find much difficulty in cal- 
culating the gain which accrues to Christiani- 
ty, from this attempt to simplify and render 
impressive the proofs, on which its claims to 
reception rest. It would seem that if we ex- 
press it by the least possible denomination of 
quantity, we cannot be very w 7 ide of the mark. 



99 



CHAP. III. 

OF THE AFFINITY SUBSISTING BETWEEN THE 
PRINCIPLES OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE, EXTER- 
NAL AND INTERNAL, AND THOSE OF THE IN- 
DUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY, 



Dr C represents his views of Christian Evi- 
dence, as entirely consonantto the principles 
of the Inductive Philosophy. And in order 
to exhibit that consonancy, and to evince the 
applicability of these principles to the inves- 
tigation of the truth of Christianity, he gives 
a sketch of the inductive philosophy : — de- 
claring that all he 6 wants is the application 
1 of Lord Bacon's principles to the investiga- 
4 tion before us/* 

The only principles or operations which 
Dr. C. has stated as necessary or admissible, 
in order to the successful completion of the 
inductive method, are such as are expressed 
by the terms 6 experience,' 1 observation/ clas- 
*§5a 



100 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 



6 sification/ or 'grouping' of c phenomena/ 

* expressing resemblances in words, and an- 
6 nouncing them to the world in the form of 
1 general laws.' * ' A law of the human mind/ 
he says, ' must be only a series of facts, re- 
4 duced to one general description or grouped 

* together/ f He states it as the duty of a 
philosopher, 6 not to assert what he cxcogi- 

* tates'% He speaks of collecting 6 the law or 
< character of a process/ and mentions New- 
ton as announcing the 1 fact and its legiti- 
i mate consequences/ % But he no where de- 
clares that the investigation of causes, either 
Efficient or Final, is a subject embraced by 
the inductive philosophy, or admissible in coa- 
sistency with its principles: and he has left it 
uncertain, whether Synthetical reasoning, as 
well as the ' a priori spirit/ may not have 
been * chased away' by Lord Bacon 4 from 

* metaphysics.' || 

There is one feature of Dr. C.'s inductive 
philosophy which has something of a novel 
appearance. That facts which are ascertained 
by testimony, are entitled no less than those 
which have fallen under the personal observa- 
tion of the inductive philosopher, to form 
part of the data on which his investigations 
* I 152. <| § 15F. " r f loo. J § S f 15€ 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 



101 



proceed, is a principle generally acknow- 
ledged and universally acted upon. But 
that he should he obliged to ground his in*- 
vestigation solely upon the experience of 
others, rejecting his own, certainly has the 
appearance of something new. Yet such 
seems to ba the principle which Dr. C. lays 
down for the guidance of his inductive philo- 
sopher. Having stated experience as the 
source whence all knowledge is derived, he 
proceeds to reject all experience, unless that 
which is conveyed through the channel of 
testimony ; a species of evidence which, ac- 
cording to him, we attach credit to merely 
from experience. He ' cannot conceive a 
1 more glaring rebellion against the authority 
6 of his (Lord Bacon's) maxims, than for the 
i beings of a day to sit in judgment upon the 
' Eternal, and apply their paltry experience to 
1 the counsels of his high and unfathomable 
c wisdom.' * He proposes and determines in 
the negative the question, whether the 6 expe* 
i rience of man can lead him to any certain 
; conclusions, as to the character of the divine 
* administration V\ — and he rests every thing 
upon the ' credit which should be annexed to 
6 the testimony of the Apostles,' | which he as- 

* § 165. f § 167, 168. % I 1S& 



102 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 



sures us 4 is altogether a question of experi- 
4 enceS * Nay. it is a question of observation. 
4 We are competent to judge of the behaviour 
* of man in given circumstances ; this is a 
4 .subject completely accessible to observa- 
4 tion — and being 6 precluded by the nature 
4 of the subject from the benefit of observa- 
' tion,' we are precluded from judging of 6 the 
4 conduct of the Almighty in given circa m- 
4 stances.' f 

But the more prominent character which 
Dr C. ascribes to the inductive philosophy, 
although it possesses no novelty to recom- 
mend it, renders insignificant all subor- 
dinate attributes with which he invests that 
philosophy, however new they may be in 
appearance. It is impossible to render his 
assertions or reasonings on the subject intelli- 
gible, without understanding him as holding 
the opinion, that experience, in the strict phi- 
losophic sense of the term, is the sole source 
from which, in consonance with Lord Bacon's 
principles, human knowledge is derived. For 
if we suppose that he uses uie term 4 experi» 
4 ence, 5 in its vague anct popular acceptation, 
his whole argument against the validity of the 
conclusions of natural religion, falls to the 
ground : nay his assertion that 4 we have no 
* i 168. t § 17fc 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 103 



4 experience of God,' is in this sense directly 
contradicted by the affirmation already quot- 
ed from another of his works, that we have 
experience of God ; and is false not merely 
in the spirit, but the very letter. It is singu- 
lar, that in adopting this common sceptical 
maxim, that all our knowledge is entirely de- 
rived from experience, in the strict sense of 
the term, Dr C. did not perceive that he set 
aside the external evidence of Christianity no 
less effectually than the internal, — that we have, 
philosophically speaking, no experience of any 
Efficient Cause, either in miraculous or natu- 
ral phenomena ; — that knowledge ot the moral 
qualities of our fellow. men cannot be derived 
from mere experience \ — that it is not experi- 
ence which teaches us the intellectual exist- 
ence of others ; — and that therefore we can- 
not learn from experience solely, that any 
credit is due to testimony. 

But are we bound to believe that the prin- 
ciple here laid down is really recognized by 
the inductive philosophy ? Are we obliged to 
take our ideas of that philosophy from tilt Phi- 
los* and Demeas of the age, because Dr C. 

* ' Whatever additional plausibility Philo may have lent 

* to the argument of Aristodemus, is derived from the much a- 
' bused maxim of the inductive logic, " that all our knowledge 

* is entirely derived from experience." It is curious that Socra- 



104 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 



has adopted some of their sentiments ? Have 
these persons completed a title, to be consider- 
ed as the depositaries of sound philosophy,and 
to declare, ex cathedra, what is, or is not, com* 
patible with the principles of the inductive 
logic ? If this is a point to be determined by 
authority, their opinion regarding it stands 
opposed to that of the highest names in natu- 
ral and in metaphysical science. If it is to be 
determined by reasoning, Dr C. ought to have 
given us something more than assertion and 
vague declamation. He ought to have shewn 
how an inductive process may be completed 
by reasoning,* without having recourse to any 
other source of knowledge than experience. 
He ought to have shewn that Bacon and his 
most eminent disciples disclaim all other sour- 
ces of knowledge than experience — that they 
reject the argument from final causes— that 
they either hold it unphilosophical to refer to 
efficient causes, or hold that experience in- 
forms us of the existence of such causes : — and 
further, he was bound to have shewn, that not- 

; tes should have touched with such precision on one of the most 
5 important exceptions with which this maxim must be received.* 
Stewajit's Elements. 

* By reasoning, is here and elsewhere meant, w r hat Dr 
Campbell and other metaphysicians style ' the discursive faculty,' 
Mr Stewart geiierallv uses the term in the same acceptation, 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 



105 



withstanding the operation of those principles* 
which overthrow the conclusions of natural the- 
ology, Christianity stands yet supported by 
external evidence. Dr C. has indeed assert- 
ed, directly or by consequence, all these points 
— but he has proved none of them. We have 
already disproved the last ; — we shall now 
examine the others ; shewing at the same time 
that the conclusions of natural theology with 
the evidences of Christianity, internal and ex- 
ternal, proceed on principles strictly conso- 
nant to those of the inductive philosophy. 

In pursuing this investigation, there seems 
a propriety in referring chiefly to an Author, 
to whom Dr C. attributes in part the banish- 
ment of that scholastic spirit which stands op- 
posed to the inductive principle. 8 When by 
' comparing' says Mr Stewart, 6 a number of 
1 cases agreeing in some circumstances, but 
< differing in others, and all attended with the 
6 same result, a philosopher connects, as a ge- 
c neral law of nature, the event with the physi* 
c cal cause, he is said to proceed according to 
6 the method of induction. 3 c When we ad- 
c vance from discovery to discovery, we do 
\ nothing more than resolve our former con- 
' elusions into others still more comprehen- 
sive, Thus Galileo and Torricelli proceeded 

K 



106 INDUCTIVE philosophy; 



( in proving that all terrestrial bodies gravitate 

* towards the earth ; in establishing which 
c conclusion, they only generalized the law of 
c gravity, reconciling it with a variety of seem- 

* ing exceptions. Newton shewed that the 
c same law of gravity extends to the celestial 
6 spaces, and that the power by which the sun 

* and moon are retained in their orbits is pre. 
' cisely similar to that which ^manifested in the 

* fall of a stone.' ' In]drawing a general physical 
€ conclusion we are guided by our instinctive 

* expectation of the continuance of the laws 
c of nature.* To this instinct, or perceptive 
power or faculty, by whatever name distin- 
tinguished, by the operation of which this un- 
doubted expectation is produced, Dr Reid 
gave the name of the 6 inductive principle.'— 
6 The evidence for the continuance of those 
c laws which have been found, in the course 
c of our past experience, to regulate the suo 
c cession of phenomena, is intuitive. Such 
6 truths no man ever thinks of stating to him- 
6 self in the form of propositions j but all our 
c conduct, and all our reasonings, proceed on 
e the supposition that they are admitted. The 
6 belief of them is necessary for the preserva- 
c tion of our animal existence., and it is ac« 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 



107 



* cordingly coeval with the first operations of 
6 the intellect.'* Thus we find that in the 
connection of effects with their physical caus- 
es, the simplest process of induction requires, 
in order to its completion^ the existence of 
evidence furnished by another source than ex- 
perience. Experience informs us of the re- 
gular operation of the laws of nature in time 
past — but it informs us of nothing more. 
We may say that experience teaches us that 
the sun will rise to-morrow ; but how does it 
teach us? Only through the medium of that 
'instinct' or < principle/ from which we de- 
rive evidence of the continuance of the laws* 
of nature. To say that we have experience, 
in Dr C/s sense of the term, of the sun's ris- 
ing to-morrow d would be downright absurdity. 

Finding that evidence furnished by experi- 
ence alone, will not serve to complete the 
simplest process of induction, without resort- 
ing to evidence furnished by the constitution 
of our minds — we now appeal to that consti- 
tution as affording evidence of the existence of 
efficient causes. If simple experience will 
not answer the purposes of induction even in 
the investigation of physical causes, but must 
call in the aid of intuitive evidence ; it is hop-- 
* Stewart's Qutk t 



108 INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 



ed that the exclusive patrons of experience 
will find no reason for objecting to our cal- 
ling in the assistance of the same sort of evi- 
dence, in our investigation of causes properly 
efficient. Certainly the expectation entertain- 
ed of the continuance of the laws of nature, 
whether that expectation owes its origin to the 
operation of a principle of common sense, of an 
instinct, or (since these terms are disliked) of 
a fundamental law of belief) an element of rea- 
son, or the constitution of the human mind,*— 
that expectation, whencesoever it may origin- 
ate,isnot more general and undoubted than the 
belief that every change is and must be pro- 
duced by the mediate or immediate opera- 
tion of an Efficient Cause somewhere ex- 
isting. If this belief is rejected notwith- 
standing its universality, and in the face 
of the greatest absurdities legitimately fol- 
lowing from its rejection, — it would be a 
vain attempt to endeavour by reasoning to 
re-establish it. No resource in such a case 
remains, but an appeal to authority. Al- 
though we cannot propose to convince by 
reasoning, the person who rejects this belief 
as irrational or unphilosophical, we may at 
least shew by the production of authorities, 
that if his notions of reason and philosophy 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 109 



are sound, then those men who rank highest 
as the distinguished possessors of reason and 
philosophy, have been grossly deficient in 
both. — Reid and Stewart, whom Dr C, does 
not deem unacquainted with the principles of 
the Baconian philosophy, have both repre- 
sented the proposition, 6 that every thing 
c which begins to exist must have a cause/ 
as belonging to the class of first principles, 
which form an essential part of the human 
constitution, — and as forming one of the pre- 
mises from which the existence of a Deity is 
legitimately inferred. It is not likely that the 
inductive philosophy, if its principles are ir* 
reconcileable with the conclusion that changes 
must be operated by efficient causes, should 
owe its origin to the writer of the following 
passages — 4 While the mind of man looketh 
i upon second causes scattered, it may some- 
1 times rest in them and go no farther, 
' But when it beholdeth the chain of them 
4 confederate and linked together, it must 
* needs fly to Providence and Deity.' — < Phi- 
4 losophy, like Jacob's vision, discovers to us 
1 a ladder, the top of which reaches to the 
1 footstool of the throne of God.' — But Dr 
G. tells us that c Lord Bacon pointed out the 
' method of true philosophising; yet in prae- 
K 2 



110 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 



' tice he abandoned it :* and from the practice 
of the master, he appeals to that of the dis- 
ciple. i Sir Isaac Newton/ says he, 6 com- 
' pleted in his own person the character of 
i the true philosopher. He not only saw the 
c general principle, but he obeyed it. 1 In 
this high encomium we cheerfully acquiesce : 
and we add, that while he saw 4 the general 

* principles' of the Baconian philosophy and 
obeyed them,- — no man ever saw more clearly 
the particular principle we are now maintain- 
ing, or obeyed it more submissively. This 
great master of the inductive method, did not 
merely deem the inference of efficient causes 
from physical effects, admissible ; — he consi- 
dered it as the great end of natural philoso- 
phy to trace up effects to their ultimate Effi- 
cient Cause. ( The main business of natural 
f philosophy? according to Newton's view of 
the subject, c is to argue from phenomena, 

* without feigning hypotheses, and to deduce 
f causes from effects, till we come to the very 
i First Cause, which certainly is not mechanical? 

It may seem superfluous to argue the vali- 
dity of that species of evidence which ascer- 
tains the character of efficient causes from 
the nature and character of effects : since the 
greatest masters of the inductive philosophy 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. Hi 



have treated the rejection of this evidence as 
indicating a depravation of intellect which is 
proof against all reasoning. Bacon's senti- 
ments on this subject have been grossly mis- 
represented : and the charge of rejecting the 
argument from final causes, still continues to 
be made against him by French philoosophers 
and their disciples; — but he has been trium- 
phantly vindicated from the chaige by Mr 
Stewart : who after citing the authorities of 
Boyle, M'Laurin, and Newton * in favour of 
the validity of this argument, adds — ' in mul- 
' tiplying these quotations I am well aware 

* With these, the .follow ring more recent authority may without 
impropriety be ranked. 

4 This accurate compensation of the inequalities of the planetary 

* motions, depends on three conditions, belonging to the prirni- 
4 tive and original constitution of the system. There three 

* conditions do not necessarily arise out cf the nature of motion 

* or gravitation, or from the action of any physical cause with 
4 which we are acquainted. Neither can they be considered as 
4 arising from chance ; for the probability is almost inhnite to cne, 
4 that without a cause particularly directed to that object, such 
4 a conformity would not have arisen in the motions of thirty- 
' one different bodies scattered over such a vast extent. — The 

* only explanation therefore that remains is, that all this is the 
4 work of intelligence t end design directing the original comti- 

* tittion of the system, and impressing such motions onthe parts 

* as were calculated to give stability to the whole.'' Play- 
fair's Outlines, Yoi. IX. 



112 INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 



6 that authorities are not arguments ; but when 
i a prejudice to which authority alone has 
1 given currency, is to be combated, what 
1 other refutation is likely to be effectual ?' 
Perhaps, however, our author may contend, 
that the very circumstance of acknowledging 
the validity of the argument from final causes, 
is sufficient to shew that these distinguished 
persons were lamentably ignorant of the true 
principles of the inductive philosophy : — and 
that the rejection of this argument is the only 
sound test of acquaintance with the true me- 
tho I of philosophising. — It may seem that if 
we admit this test, w T e are effectually deprived 
of all support from authority : — for in order 
to prove that genuine inductive philosophers 
have admitted the validity of this argument, 
we must shew that it is recognised as sound 
by those who have rejected it as fallacious. 
This however is no such difficulty as it may 
seem to be. All we are called upon to do, is 
to shew that those who argue against first 
principles contradict themselves — which is a 
thing they never fail to do : — a thing which it 
is indeed impossible for them to avoid. Ac- 
cepting this somewhat unusual test, the first 
authority we shall produce is that of Mr Hume : 
the second that of Dr Chalmers. — After the 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 



113 



strength of Philo's scepticism has expended 
itself, in all the wild extravagancies which his 
unbridled imagination can suggest ; — after he 
has banished Demea, and has begun to ex- 
perience the return of common sense ; — he is 
at length pleased to express himself in the 
following manner. 6 A purpose, an intention^ 

* a design, every where strikes the most care- 
Mess, the most stupid thinker; and no man 
4 can be so hardened in absurd systems, as at 
4 all times to reject it. That nature does no* 
4 thing in vain, is a maxim established in all 
6 the schools, merely from the contemplation 
4 of the works of nature, without any religious 

* purpose ; and from a firm conviction of its 
8 truth, an anatomist, who had observed a new 
4 organ or canal, would never be satisfied, till 
4 he had also discovered its use and intention. 
4 One great foundation of the Copernican sys- 
4 tern is the maxim, that nature acts by the sim- 
4 plest methods, and chuses the most proper 
4 means to any end ; and astronomers often, 
4 without thinking of it, lay this strong founda- 
4 tion of piety and religion. The same thing is 
4 observable in other parts of philosophy : 
' and thus all the sciences lead us insensibly 
4 to acknowledge a first intelligent Author; 
4 and their authority is often so much the 



114 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 



i greater, as they do not directly profess that 
\ intention. The farther we advance in ana- 
' tomical researches, we discover new scenes 

* of art and wisdom, and if the infidelity of 
1 Galen, even when these natural sciences were 
< still imperfect, could not with&tand such strife- 
' ing appearances, to what pitch of pertinaci- 

* ous obstinacy must a philosopher in this age 
1 have attained, who can now doubt of a Su- 

* preme Intelligence V When Dr Chalmers* 
scheme of Christian Evidence has apparently 
escaped from his memory ; after he has banish- 
ed all idea of the fallacy and pernicious ten- 
dency of the internal evidence ; and has be- 
taken himself to the establishment of the au- 
thority of the Gospel, and the reasonableness 
of its doctrines, on the ground of i experience 
of God/ and the conclusions of natural theo- 
logy i — he expresses himself after this fashion. 

* When I look abroad on the wondrous scene 
1 that is immediately before me,— and see 

* that in every direction, it is a scene of the 
' most various and unwearied activity,— and 
6 expatiate on ail the beauties of that garniture 
6 by which it is adorned,, and on all the prints 
6 of design and cf benevolence which abound in 
' it, — and think that the same God, who holds 
6 the universe, with its every system, in the 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. MB 



hollow of his hand, pencils every flower, and 
c gives nourishment to every blade of grass, 
6 and actuates the movements of every living 
6 thing, and is not disabled by the weight of 
c his other cares from enriching the humble 
6 department of nature I occupy, with charms 
' and accommodations of the most unbounded 
c variety — then surely, if a message bearing 
c every mark of authenticity, should profess 
* to come to me from God, and inform me of 
c his mighty doings for the happiness of our 
' species, it is not for me, in the Jace of all this 
6 evidence, to reject it as a tale of imposture, 
e because astronomers have told me,' &c. ' It 
c is a wonderful thing that God should be so 
' unincumbered by the concerns of a whole uni- 
i verse, that he can give a constant attention 
' to every moment of every individual in this 
i world's population. But wonderful as it is, 
6 you do not hesitate to admit it as true, on the 
€ evidence of your own recollections. It is a 
w wonderful thing that he whose eye is at every 
c instant on so many worlds, should have peo- 
6 pled the world we inhabit with all the traces 
c of the varied design and benevolence which a- 
6 bound in it. But, great as the wonder is, you 
i do not allow so much as the shadow of impro - 
6 bability to darken it, for its reality is what 



116 INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 



< you actually witness, and you never think of 
6 questioning the evidence of observation? * 

In these passages, our author, it will be ob- 
served, asserts that there are in nature numer- 
ous c prints,' or * traces' furnishing c evidence/ 
not merely of ' design/ or intelligence, but 
of 6 benevolence' in the Deity. This is a 
point of some consequence; as it places the 
authority of Dr C. (when not writing syste- 
matically upon Christian Evidence) in opposi- 
tion to that of certain infidel authors, who ad- 
mitting that there are found in nature con- 
clusive evidences of in telligence and power, de- 
ny that from any source accessible to human 
research, we can derive legitimate evidence of 
the moral character of the Deity. The ad- 
mission, however, of the argument from final 
causes, as conclusive in regard to the natur- 
al attributes of Deity is fatal to the rejection 
of it in the case of his moral attributes f. 
The evidence is in principle precisely the 
same,-— and although in certain respects 
more abstruse and complex, is far from 
being 'inferior in amount. The premises 
are in both cases drawn from what we c ex- 
perience,' either within us or without, and the 
process by which the conclusion is reached in 

* Ckal. Astrom. Dij>e. IIL 
f See Warburton's Examination of Bolingbroke. Dir. Leg;, 
App. Vol. I. 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 



11? 



both cases is strictly inductive. * As Dr C. 

has mentioned the writings of Mr Stewart, as 
having 6 contributed much to bring the science 
* of mind under the entire dominion of the in- 
6 ductive philosophy^ — these writings may be 
fairly referred to as furnishing evidence, re- 
garding the consistency of the argument in 
favour of the moral perfections and govern- 
ment of the Deity, with the principles of that 
philosophy. — 6 Our ideas' then, (according to 
Mr S.) ' of the moral attributes of God must 
6 be derived from our own moral perceptions. 
6 It is only by attending to these, that we can 
6 form a conception of what his attributes are ; 
c and it is in this way that we are furnished with 

* The term, c a priori,' has been applied to reasonings of so 
different nature, that it is difficult to fix any definite character 
to it. It has become in the hands of Dr C. and of other writers, 
a term of reproach, denoting mere assumption or hypothesis. — 
Perhaps the mathematical form, in which arguments for the ex- 
istence and attributes of the Belly, proceeding on data furnish- 
ed chiefly by our intellectual and moral perceptions, have been 
sometimes put, — has contributed to the continued use of this 
term. The same circumstance has, I conceive been productive 
of a worse effect By thus assuming a rank which they are not 
entitled to hold ; and aiming at strict demonstration, an object 
they can never reacii , arguments of this sort have lost, in gener- 
al estimation, that sound and conclusive character which proper- 
ly belongs to probable evidence of the highest class, — a charac- 
ter which they are in their own nature fully qualified to sustain 
L 



11$ INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY, 



' the strongest proofs that they really belong 
€ to him/ 6 The distinction between right and 
c wrong, is apprehended by the mind to be eter- 
€ nal and immutable no less than the distinc- 
1 tion between mathematical truth and false- 

* hood. To argue, therefore, from our own 

* moral judgments to the administration of the 
1 Deity, cannot be justly censured as a rash ex- 

* tension to the divine nature, of suggestions 
e resulting from the arbitrary constitution of 
c our own minds/ 6 The ultimate appeal 

* must be always made to the moral sentiments 

* and emotions of the human race.' ' The sen- 

* timent of Publius Syrus, 6 omne dixeris male- 
" dictum, quum ingratum hominem dixeris y 

* speaks a language which accords with every 
c feeling of an unperverted mind ; it speaks 
c the language of nature, which it is the pro- 

* vince of the moralist not to criticise, but to 

* listen to.' 6 To act in conformity to our 
c sense of rectitude, is plainly the highest ex- 
1 cellen.ee which our nature is capable of at. 

* taining, nor can we avoid extending the same 

* rule of estimation to all intelligent beings 
' whatever. Besides these conclusions with 

* respect to the Divine attributes, (which seem 
6 to be implied in our very perception of mo. 

* ral distinctions,) there are others perfectly 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 



119 



' agreeable to them, which continually force 
6 themselves on the mind, in the exercise of 
6 our moral judgments, both with respect to 
e our own conduct and that o fother men. The 
c reverence which we feel to be due to the 
c admonitions of conscience ; the sense of me- 
c rit and demerit which accompanies our good 
i and bad actions; the warm interest we take 

* in thejbrtunes of the virtuous ; the indigna- 
{ tion we feel at the occasional triumphs of 
i successful villany ; all imply a secret convic- 

* tion of the moral administration of the unU 
6 verse. An examination of the ordinary course 

* of human affairs adds to the force of these 
' considerations; and furnishes a ^roof from 
6 the fact, that notwithstanding the seemingly 
' promiscuous distribution of happiness and 
' misery in this life, the reward of virtue and 

* the punishment of vice, are the great objects of 

* all the general laws by which the world is go- 
1 verned? The tendency of these laws will be 
6 found in every instance favourable to order and 

* to happiness ; and it is one of the noblest em- 
1 ployments of Philosophy to investigate the he- 
6 nifi cent purposes to which they are subservient? 
Yet notwithstanding this clear exposition of 
the natural evidence for the moral character 



120 INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 



and administration of God, — notwithstanding 
this decided assertion of the sound philoso- 
phical character of that evidence^ — and in the 
face of encomiums bestowed by himself on the 
philosophical nature of those very ' writings' 
from which these extracts are taken does 
Dr C. affirm, that all our conclusions regard- 
ing the Divine character and administration 
drawn from such sources are unphilosophical, 
and ' of no more value than the fooleries of an 
« infant.' 

The points now established, are sufficient 
to secure the chief conclusions of natural 
theology, from the charge of inconsistency 
with the principles of the inductive philoso- 
phy. In order to connect these conclusions, 
with others of a subordinate nature, and with 
revelation, so as to complete the philosophi- 
cal character of the internal evidence, all that 
seems yet remaining to be ascertained is the 
legitimacy of synthetic reasoning. It is not 
clear, whether reasoning of this description 
is admissible according to Dr C 's philosophy, 
or whether he means to reject it as animated 
by the * a priori spirit ' However this may be, 
we shall rest iis soundness on the assertion, 
that it is held legitimate by the eminent mas- 
ters of the inductive philosophy already re- 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY-. 121 



ferred to, and on the following passage from 
the writings of Mr Stewart. 6 It is the peculiar 
6 and exclusive prerogative of a system fairly 
c obtained by the method of induction, that 
6 while it enables us to arrange facts already 
6 known, it furnishes the means of ascertain- 
6 ing, by synthetic reasonings those which we 
t have no access to examine by direct obser- 
e vation. The difference among hypothetical 
6 theories, is merely a difference of degree, 
e arising from the greater or less ingenuity of 
( their authors; whereas legitimate theories 
s are distinguished from all others radically 
* and essentially ; and accordingly, while the 
c former are liable to perpetual vicissitudes, 
' the latter are as permanent as the laws 
i which regulate the order of the universe,' 

From these brief illustrations, the true na- 
tare of the inductive philosophy, so far as it 
regards the subject under consideration, will 
be sufficiently apparent ; as well as the sound 
and philosophical character of the evidence 
on which Christianity rests its claims to recep- 
tion. Consciousness; the external senses; 
the power of intuition, by which among other 
truths the existence of efficient causes is as- 
certained, and the character of ^uch causes 
1*2 



122 INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY, 



inferred from our perception of ends and 
uses in their effects ; — these are the sources, 
from which the whole evidences of Christi- 
anity are ultimately derived. All evidence 
drawn from these sources, is recognised as 
legitimate by the greatest masters of the in- 
ductive school, — and cannot be questioned 
without subverting all sound philosophy. 
What grosser perversion of terms can be 
imagined, than to characterize conclusions 
legitimately founded on evidence furnished 
by these sources, as mere 6 speculations,' or 
matters of ' taste' and 6 fancy ?' With equal 
propriety, may the whole of human science 
be denominated speculation, taste, and fan- 
cy; for in the whole circle of science no 
surer foundation for any one conclusion can 
be discovered. — From the phenomena of the 
material world ; — from the intellectual and 
moral constitution of the human mind ; — from 
the condition and circumstances of man ; — 
from our conceptions of space and duration j 
— from the idea formed by the human mind 
of a perfect Self-existent Being ; * — conclu- 

* To display at length the evidence of Christianity, tracing 
up in detail the various proofs composing that evidence to the 
fundamental principles on which they rest, is not the design of 
this Essay. Its object is no more than to point out what those 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 



123 



sions which regard the existence, character, 
and administration of the Great First Cause of 
all things, may be legitimately and philoso- 
phically drawn. Availing ourselves first of all 

principles are, and to vindicate their stability and trustworthi- 
ness. In regard to the arguments of Newton and Pes Cartes 
last alluded to, it is obvious that they rest, no less than the 
reasonings which the term a posteriori has been employed to 
designate, on evidence derived from the sources now shewn to 
be legitimate. Des Cartes thus states the premises upon which 
his conclusion is founded. ' Dum in meipsum mentis acTem 

* converto, non modo intelligo me esse rem incompletam, et ab 

* alio dependentem. remque ad majora et meliora indefinite as- 

* pirantem, sed simul etiam intelligo ilium, a quo pendeo, ma- 

* jora ista omnia non indefinite et potentia tantum, sed re ipsa 
1 infinite in se habere, at que ita Deum esse,' &c. Newton's 
argument is thus stated by Dr Clarke : — ' Space and time are 
1 only abstract conceptions of an immensity and eternity, which 
4 force themselves on our beliefs and as immensity and eter- 

* nity are not substances, they must be attributes' (or as he 
elsewhere expresses it, 4 modes of existence' ) 4 of a Being who 

* is necessarily immense and eternal.' I conceive that the facts 
which support the conclusion in both cases, are partly to be as- 
certained by obse rvation, partly by reflection — and that what- 
ever may be the opinion formed of the clearness or conclusive- 
ness of the argument in either case, nothing can be more oppo- 
site to the character of hypothetical assumption. 4 The above 
4 argument (Des Cartes's) for the existence of God (very im- 

* properly called by some foreigners an argument a priori} was 
4 long considered by the most eminent men in Europe as quite 

* demonstrative. For my own part, although I do not think it 

* is by any means so level to the apprehension of ccminon en- 

* quirers, as the argument from the marks of design every where 



124 INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY* 



the sources of knowledge presented to us by 
nature, we quickly find our inability to under- 
stand fully the essence and character of the 
Deity, or to comprehend the extent and details 
of his administration. But we also find, that 
(unless our faculties are radically deceptious, 
in which case neither reason nor revelation can 
possibly afford us certain knowledge on any 
subject whatever,) we have undoubted ground 
for concluding that a Deity exists — that cer- 
tain qualities belong to the Divine character 
— and that certain general principles mark his 
administration. Thus combining together ihe 
natural evidences furnished by the sources a- 
bove mentioned, we conclude with the fullest 
assurance, that one Supreme Intelligence has 
created and arranged all things — that he pre- 
sides over all — and that wisdom, justice, and 

4 manifested in the universe, I am still less inclined to reject it 
' as altogether unworthy of attention. It is far from being so 

* metaphysically abstruse as the reasonings of Newton and 
4 Clarke founded on our conceptions of space and time, nor 

* would it perhaps appear less logical and conclusive than that 
1 celebrated demonstration, if it were properly unfolded, and 

* stated in more simple and popular terms. The two argu- 
i ments, however, are in no respect exclusive of each other ; 
4 and I have always thought, that by combining them together, 
*■ a proof of the point in question might be formed, more im- 

* pressive and luminous than is to be obtained from either, whes 
' stated apart.' — Stewart's Diss, Eneyc. Briti. 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 



125 



benignity mark his character and government. 
Should a system of religion claiming divine 
authority offer itself to our reception, repre- 
senting the universe as governed by a plura- 
lity of deities, — or should it represent the Su- 
preme ( Being who presides' over alh as 6 arbi- 
• trary, unjust, and malignant,' — we should 
find no evidence whatever, capable of esta- 
blishing the claims of such a system to our 
conviction or obedience. — Christianity offers 
itself to our acceptance, professing to he a re- 
velation from heaven. It presents to us a new 
class of phenomena, exhibited in a written re- 
cord, to which we attend as carefully as- to 
those which are displayed to us in the book 
of nature. In this new field of investigation, we 
trace the same characteristic marks of the Di- 
vine Being, which we had previously ascertain- 
ed. ^Comparing with our former conclusions, 
the general principles here declared to regu- 
late the divine procedure, we rind them to 
cojrresp nd in every respect ; what is ob- 
scure in the former, is illustrated by the 
latter ; and their mutual harm ny erves to ve- 
rify both.— There are particulars, connected 
with the general conclusions vve have antece- 
dently reached, in regard to which we find no 
sufficient data within the reach of our unaid- 
ed faculties, to enaule us to iorm any deter- 



126 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 



minate opinion. On some of these points, re- 
velation gives us full and explicit information, 
of such a character as harmonizes perfectly 
with that of the general truths it discloses, and 
of the theological conclusions of reason. In 
regard to matters of another kind, we find our- 
selves compelled by the absurdity of certain 
propositions, to believe others of an opposite 
nature, the subjects of which are extremely 
obscure and incomprehensible in certain par- 
ticulars ; and we find reason to suppose that 
such subjects are in their nature above the 
comprehension of our limited faculties. Re- 
velation asserts such propositions to be true, 
but does not enable us to comprehend in all 
respects the subjects to which they relate: 
declaring explicitly in regard to some of them, 
that they art above the reach of human intel- 
lect in its present state. In short, at whatever 
point we contemplate Christianity, in connec- 
tion with those theological and moral conclu- 
sions which are legitimately drawn from the 
sources abovemt ntioned ; — we find evidence 
of the soundest and most philosophical kind, 
that this religious system owes its origin to 
the same Great Being from whom all things 
derive their existence and character, — a Be- 
ing of all wisdom and moral perfection, inter- 
posing for the momentous purpose of con- 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 127 



ducting his rational creatures to sublime hap- 
piness. In all this, (to apply the language 

of Dr C. to a different subject,) 6 there is no 
6 theory, no assumption.' 6 We do not step 

* beyond the cautious procedure of Lord Ba- 
' con's philosophy.' 

Although the principles held by Dr C. and 
by him attributed to the inductive philosophy, 
militate not more fatally against the internal 
evidence than against the external ; — there is 
in truth nothing in the principles of that phi- 
losophy rightly understood, which is inconsis- 
tent with those on which the latter species of 
evidence is founded. The argument which 
establishes the previous presumption in favour 
of miracles, formerly referred to,being ground- 
ed on the dignity of the end manifestly con- 
templated in the constitution of Christianity, 
proceeds on principles which, as has been now 
shewn, are fully recognized by that philoso- 
phy.* Of the quality of the testimony emit- 

* ' Dotli this appear to tlie Essayist too much like arguing a 

* priori, of which I know he hath a detestation ? It is just such 
4 an argument as presupposing the most rational principles ot" 

* Deism, results from those maxims concerning intelligent causes 
1 and their operations, which are founded in general experience, 
4 and which uniformly lead us to expect, that the end will be 
■ proportional, to the means. — Campbell's Essay on Miracles, 



I2S 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY", 



ted by the Christian witnesses, we cannot in* 
deed j udge from mere 6 experience — but ac- 
knowledging the authority of primary laws of 
belief, uniformly regulating the procedure of 
the inductive philosopher, — its full credibility 
is ascertained. — And furnished with those ante- 
cedent conceptions of Deity which natural the- 
ology establishes,or permitted to employ the in- 
ternalevidence, — we are able by a process ofin- 
duction, equally simple and legitimate, toprove 
from miracles, in the most conclusive manner, 

the truth of Christianity.*' Thus, all the 

chief evidences, on which the Christian reve- 
lation rests its claims to acceptance, are found 
to be of the most legitimate nature, ' The 

5 argument of the Christian/ as Dr C. affirms, 

6 is precisely what the maxims of Lord Bacon 
i would dispose us to acquiesce in. 1 And it is 
only the sceptic who questions, or the atheist 
who rejects the authority of those laws of belief, 
by means of which phenomena ascertained by 
consciousness, sense, testimony, &c. become 
subservient to the inductive process, — that 
can properly be considered as beyond the 
reach of Christian evidence. The inductive 
philosophy has done much for human science ; 
and its aspect is no less favourable when view- 

* See page 42. 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 



129 



ed in relation to science of an higher descrip- 
tion. If it has already brought into contempt 
all such vain hypotheses as the 6 ether and 
i whirlpools of Des Cartes' — the time it may 
be hoped is approaching, when the ' deli- 
1 cious speculations' (as our author terms 
6 them) of < Rousseau,' with all those wild 
and extravagant systems which rear them- 
selves up in opposition to rational evidence 
and sound Christianity, will share a similar 
fate. 

Dr C. takes particular notice of Butler's 
analogical argument. He pronounces the 
author to be 4 one of the soundest and most 
( philosophical of our theologians :'* yet he 
c conceives' such reasonings as Butler's to be 
founded in c presumption,' to be 6 unphiloso- 
' phical, and precisely analogous to that theo- 
' rizing a priori spirit, which the wisdom of 
c Bacon has banished from all the schools of 
6 philosophy. 'f Taking our ideas of the induc- 
tive philosophy, not from the imperfect sketch 
of it given by Dr C, but from the representa- 
tions of the best naturalists and'metaphysicians 
of the age; it is not easy to conceive any 
train of reasoning more strictly philosophical, 
than that which Butler has employed in sup- 
* § 175. f J 177. 



130 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 



port of Christianity. Adopting as its founda- 
tion, those conclusions which natural theology 
by strict induction draws from sources now 
shewn to be legitimate, the author proceeds 
to point out synthetically the characteristic 
qualities, which those conclusions lead us to 
expect in a revelation proceeding from the 
Creator and Governor of the world } and he 
shews how conspicuous these qualities are, in 
the Christian dispensation. The admirable 
manner in which the argument is conducted ; 
— the extent to which the analogy is traced ; — 
the profound yet clear views of the author 
the closeness of the reasoning ; — the wariness 
with which all the particular arguments are 
urged, leaving a constant impression on the 
reader's mind, that each is capable of bearing 
more weight than is laid upon it, — have justly 
established the character which Dr C. bestows 
upon the author. This celebrated argument, 
Dr. C.'s principles destroy; reducing it to the 
condition of a mere argument urn ad hominem, 
and restricting its effect to the removal of 
certain deistical objections. He asserts in- 
deed, that 6 it is not so much the object of 
6 the author to found any positive argument 
g on the accordancy, &c. as to repel the argu- 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 



131 



c merits founded upon the discordancy.'* The 
author, it is true, expresses himself on this 
subject as on others with great caution ; but he 
certainly did not consider the influence of his 
reasoning as limited to the repelling of objec- 
tions : much less did he consider himself as 
1 presumptuously* occupying ground, which 
although sufficient for defence against the 
enemy zo whom he stood opposed, was in its 
nature untenable and fallacious. 6 The analo- 
' gy here proposed to be considered is,' he 
declares, ' of pretty large extent, and con- 
1 sists of several parts ; in some more, in others 
1 less exact. In some few instances, perhaps, 
1 it may amount to a real practical proof ; in 
c others not so : yet in these, it is a confrma- 
i iion of what is proved otherways.'f Admit- 
ting, what cannot indeed be denied, the com- 
petency of analogical reasoning to afford po- 
sitive evidence ; the points on which Butler 
has brought his analogy to bear, are so nu- 
merous and important, that his argument, if 
fairly estimated, must be considered as pro- 
ductive of a very high degree of positive evi- 
dence J . 

* § 178. f Butler's Analogy. Introduction. 
\ * In some instances, the probability resulting from a con- 
' currence of different analogies may rise so high, as to produce 

* an effect on the belief scarcely distinguishable from moral cer- 

* raiaty,' Stewart, 



132 INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 



Dr C. very properly refers to Newton as 
having carried the inductive method into prac- 
tice with equal rigour and success : and he 
earnestly recommends the example of that 
great philosopher to those who would investi- 
gate the Christian Evidence. He could not 
indeed have chosen an happier example, for 
illustrating the applicability of the Inductive 
Philosophy properly understood, to the Chris- 
tian Evidences both external and internal;— 
nor one which exhibits in a stronger point of 
view the utter fallacy of his own principles. 
Was it by 4 experience,' or ? direct and per- 
' sonal observation/ that Newton became ac- 
quainted with that 6 invisible* cause to which 
he referred the descent of bodies on this 
earth ? He observed merely some of its ef- 
fects ; and by ascertaining and comparing 
these, he acquired the knowledge of certain 
laws by which its operations are conducted. 
Presuming on the acquaintance with the qua- 
lities of this unknown 6 power,' which by ob- 
servation of some of its effects he had acquir- 
ed, he assumed it as the cause of the plane- 
tary motions — a cause wholly 6 inaccessible* to 
him, and certainly not * coming within the 
4 limits of direct and personal observation.' 
Applying synthetically to the explication of 



INDUCTIVE" PHILOSOPHY. 



135 



new phenomena, the principle he had thus 
obtained ; he found it to account in all im- 
portant points for their production and char- 
acter, solving the difficulties and apparent 
contrarieties which had hitherto encompassed 
the subject. Founded, as the internal evi- 
dence of Christianity mainly is, upon observa- 
tion of the common phenomena of the world, 
natural and moral; — if there is any part of 
Christian Evidence more strictly and exten- 
sively similar in principle than another to the 
Newtonian method, — it is that part. So re- 
markable indeed is that similarity, — that if 
Newton really rejected as fallacious the in- 
ternal evidence of Christianity, with the con- 
clusions of natural theology, — we should be 
tempted to pronounce such a rejection the 
most flagrant example of inconsistency, which 
a mind of high rank and cultivated powers 
ever exhibited. Newton was a firm believer 
in the truth of Christianity. Did he then 
really exhibit the inconsistency here sup- 
posed ? — Did his conviction rest 4 exclusively* 
on the external evidences? — Did he deem it 
unphilosophical to infer from observation of 
natural phenomena, the existence and intel~ 
ligent character of the • Invisible' Efficient 
Cause ? Did he conceive the human intellect 
M 2 



134 INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 



unqualified for the perception of moral 
ends and uses, or incompetent to infer from 
such perceptions the mural qualities of the 
Efficient Cause ? — Did he consider it as the 
chief end of philosophy, to 1 groupe pheno- 
1 mena/ to * express resemblances in vvords^ 

* and announce them to the world in the form 

* of general laws V Far otherwise. The great 
purpose of philosophy, be declares to be ' not 
'only to unfold the mechanism of the worlds 
but chiefly to resolve these and such like 

< questions : Whence is it that nature does 
' nothing in vain, and whence arises all that 

* order and beauty which we see in the world ? 

* —How came the bodies of animals to be con- 
€ trived with so much art, and for what ends 

* were their several parts ? — Was the eye con- 

< trived without skill in optics, and the ear 
i without knowledge of sounds?' * Still it is 

* * Hunc '(Entem Intelligenteni et Potentem) * cognoseinius 

* solummodo per proprietates suas et attribute, et per sapientis- 
■ simas et optimas rerum structures, et causas finales? — 4 Et 

* haec de Deo . de quo utique ex phenomenis dissever e, ad phi- 
losophiam experimentalem pertineV Newt. Princip. We 
cannot conceive a more glaring rebellion against Lord da- 
con's maxims, than for the beings of a day to sit in judgment 
upon the Eternal, and to apply their paltry experience to ths 
counsels of His high and unfathomable wisdom." — ' In the 
process of time, the delusion multiplied and extended. Schools 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 



135 



possible that Newton's faith in Christianity 
may have rested solely on the external evi- 
dences, and that he may ha?e deemed it pre- 
sumption to investigate the ' subject of the 
message,' with a view to ascertain its truth.— 
By no means. Dr C. himself narrates * the 
proofs on which the conviction of this eminent 
person was founded ; and after enumerating 
the chief external evidences, he informs us, 
that Newton ' saw the wisdom of God pervad- 

< ing the whole substance of the written mes- 
' sage, in such manifold adaptation to the cir- 

< cumstances of man, and to the whole secrecy 
6 of his thoughts, and his affections, and his 
' spiritual wants, and his moral sensibilities, 
c as, even in the mind of an ordinary and un- 

* lettered peasant, can be attested by human 

4 were formed, and the way of the Divinity was as confidently 
4 theorized upon, as the processes of chemistry, and the eco- 

* nomy of the heavens. Universities were endowed, and na- 
1 tnral theology took its place in the circle of the sciences/ Chal. 
Evid. — it seems somewhat capricious on the part of the author 
of these passages, to select Newton as the subject of unmingled 
approbation ; — and to treat Des Cartes with unqualified reprehen- 
sion, notwithstanding he pronounced the argument from final 
causes altogether futile : agreeing with Dr C. that it is prc- 
•u caption on the part of human reason, to attempt from obses- 
Tation of nature to penetrate into the counsels of heaven, 

* Astronomical Discourses, IL 



136 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 



€ consciousness. These formed the solid mate- 
€ rials of the basis on which our experimental 
'philosopher stood * 

Our author's rejection of the argument from 
Final Causes, necessarily involves the negation 
of all theological conclusions, deducible from 
the brilliant physical discoveries of modern 
times His imperfect acquaintance with the 
principles upon which Newton proceeded in 
his investigations, has led him into the strange 
inconsistency of at once maintaining the legi- 
timacy of that process by which the Newto- 
nian discoveries were atchieved, and denying 
that they furnish ground for any inferences 
regarding the nature and character of God 
or his administration. — 6 All the philosophy 
( which has been reared by the labour of suc- 
' cessive ages, is the philosophy of facts re- 
€ duced to general laws, or brought under a 
' general description from observed points of 

* resemblance. A proud and a wonderful fa- 

* brie we do allow ; but we throw away the 
' very instrument by which it was built the 

* moment that we cease to observe, and begin 
f to theorise and to excogitate. Tell us a single 
€ discovery which has thrown a particle of 

* light on the details of the divine administra- 
€ tion. Tell us a single truth in the whole 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 



137 



* field of experimental science, which can bring 
c us to the moral government of the Almighty 
6 by any other road than his own revelation, 
c Astronomy has taken millions of suns and 

* of systems within its ample domain ; but the 
: ways of God to man stand at a distance as 
1 inaccessible as ever. Nor has it shed so 
'much as a glimmering over the councils of 
6 that mighty and invisible Being, who sits in 
< high authority over all worlds. The boasted 
' discoveries of modern science are all confined 
c to tha t field, within which the sense of man 
' can expatiate. The moment we go beyond 
6 this field they cease to be discoveries, and are 
c the mere speculations of the fancy' * c We 
c cannot conceive a transition more ardent and 
1 insurmountable, than to pass from the truths 

* of natural science to a speculation on the 
' details of Go J's administration, or the eco- 
4 nomy of his moral government.' t Whether 
our author meant that the reasonings he else- 
where employs should be looked upon as il- 
lustrative of the principles advanced in the 
work before us, we have no means of ascer- 
taining, It appears, however, that on an ther 
occasion he accepts the challenge which he 
throws out in the passage now quoted — enu- 
merates a variety of 8 truths within the field 

* § 195. + J 177. 



138 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 



( of experimental science,' which he holds up 
as 6 bringing us to the moral government of 
6 God by another road than his own revela- 
' tion, 1 — and uses expressions which can only 
be understood as affirming that i the boasted 
1 discoveries of modern science are' not 1 con- 
' fir.ed to that field, within which the sense of 
4 man tan expatiate.' * The reasonings of our 

* ' Is it presumption to say, that the moral world extends to 
4 thesf distant and nnknown regions ? that they are occupied 
' with people ? that the charities of home, and of neighbour': ood, 

* flourish there ? that the praises of God are there lifted up. and 
' his goodness rejoiced in ? that piety has its temples and its of- 

* feringb ? and the richness of the divine attributes is taere felt 

* and admired by intelligent worshippers ?' We can assert 

1 with the highest probability, that yon planetary orbs are so 

* many worlds that they teem with life, and that the mighty Be- 
' ing who presides in high authority over this scene of grandeur 

* and astonishment, has there planted the worshippers of his 

* glory ?' ' By the one the telescope.) I am told that the 

1 Almighty is now at wort: in regions more distant than geome- 
' try has ever measured > and among worlds more manifold than 

* numbers have ever reached. But by the other, (the micros- 

* cope.) I am also told, that, with a mind to comprehend the 

* whole, in the vast compass of its generality, he has also a mind 

* to concentrate a close and separate attention on each and on all 

* of its particulars.' — { Now. that the microscope has unveiled the 

* wonders of another region. I see strewed around me, with a 

* profusion which baffles my every attempt to comprehend it, the 

* evidence that there is no one portion of the universe of God too 

* minute for his notice, nor too humble for the visitations of his 
1 care." — ' The way in which we have attempted to dispose of 

* this plea is, by icsisting on the eviden€eiha\ i# evert/ where m- 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 139 



author now alluded to, (whatever opinion maybe 
formed respecting the conclusiveness of many 
of them, or the admissibility of certain analo- 
gies which he asserts) are founded upon those 
principles, which in the work here subjected 
to examination he all along labours to over- 
throw : principles, which so far from being 
inconsistent, are in truth the very same, with 
those on which the Newtonian philosophy is 
reared. — 6 Nothing,' (says Mr Stewart) i could 
< be more inconsistent with that irresistible 
6 disposition which prompts every philosophi- 

* cal enquirer to argue from the known to the 

4 round u$, of God combining with the largeness of a vast and 
1 mighty superintendence, which reaches the outskirts of crea- 

* tion, and spreads oyer all its amplitudes — the faculty of bestow- 

* ing as much attention, and exercising as complete and mani- 

* fold a wisdom, and lavishing as profuse and inexhaustible a 
4 goodness, on each of its humblest departments, as if it formed 
' the whole extent of his territory/ — ' In all these greater ar- 
4 rangements of divine wisdom, we can see that God has done 
' the same things for the accommodation of the planets, that he 
4 has done for the earth which we inhabit. And shall we say, 
4 that the resemblance stops here, because we are not in a situ- 
4 ation to observe it ? — that not a worshipper of tue Divinity is to 
4 be found through the wide extent of yon vast and immeasuveabie 
4 regions ? It lends a delightful confirmation to the argument, 

* when from the growing perfection of eur instruments, we can 
4 discover a new point of resemblance between our earth and the 

* other bodies of the planetary system,' Sec. 

Chalmers' Astron, Disc, 



140 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 



' unknown, than to suppose that while all the 
( different bodies which compose the material 
6 universe are manifestly related to each other, 
f as parts of a connected whole, the moral 
' events which happen on our planet are quite 
i insulated, and that the rational beings who 
4 inhabit it, and for whom we may reasonably 
€ presume it was brought into existence, have 
' no relation whatever to other intelligent and 
' moral natures. The presumption unques- 
' tionably is, that there is one great moral sys- 
4 tem, corresponding to the material system ; 
' and that the connections which we at pre- 
( sent trace so distinctly among the sensible 
6 objects composing the one, are exhibited as 
1 so many intimations of some vast scheme, 
* comprehending all the intelligent beings 
c who compose the other. In this argument, 
( as in numberless others which analogy sug. 
4 gests in favour of our future prospects, the 
i evidence is precisely of the same sort with that 
i which first encouraged Newton to extend his 
4 physical speculations beyond the limits of the 
1 earth.* The sole difference is, that he had 

* I cannot deny myself the pleasure of inserting here a pas- 
iage from a late controversial work of the celebrated Ram 
Mohun Roy, written in reply to one of his Brahminical anta- 
gonists who accuses him of ' denying the materiality of Deity 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY, 141 



1 an opportunity of verifying the results of his 
6 conjectures by an appeal to sensible facts : 

< but this accidental circumstance, (although 

< it certainly affords peculiar satisfaction and 
c conviction to the astronomers mind) does 
c not aifect the grounds on which the conjec- 
c ture was origin all) formed ; and only fur- 
1 nishes an experimental proof of the justness 

* because it is not evident to sense? and by consequence of 
holding that 1 Faith is confined to tho^e objects only which 
4 are evident to s..nse.' Ram Mohun answers : — ' The asser- 
4 tion which I made use of in my former treatise is, that the na- 
4 ture of the Godhead is bejond the comprehension of external 
1 and internal senses ; which I presame implies neither denial 
4 of the materiality of God on the sole ground of his being invisu 
1 ble, nor the limitation of my faith merely to objects evident to 
1 the senses. For many things that far surpass the limits of our 
4 senses to perceive, or experience to teach, may yet be render- 
1 ed credible or even demonstrated by inferences drawn fror.i 
4 our experience. Such as the mutual gravitation of the earth 
4 and moon towards each other, and of both to the sun which 
'facts cannot be perceived by any of our senses, but may be 
1 clearly demonstrated by reasoning drawn from our expe- 
4 rience. Hence it appears that a thing is justly denied only 
4 when found contrary to sense and reason, and not merely be- 

* cause it is not perceptible to the senses.' — A defence of Mo- 
notheism, containing sentiments so philosophical and so accu- 
rately expressed, written and published at once in the Bengali 
and English languages by a Brahmin, — cannot but be hailed by 
every enlightened friend to Christianity, as the earnest of better 
things yet to come, than have hitherto accompanied the attempts 
t» introduce the gospel into the East. 

N 



142 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 



4 of the principles on which it proceeded/ 
4 Between these two very different researches 
4 (into " uses or advantages," and into " caus- 
4 es") there is, both in physics and ethics, a 
4 very intimate connection. In various cases, 
4 the consideration of final causes has led to 
* the discovery of some general laws of na- 
4 ture ; — and in almost every case, the disco. 
4 very of a general law clearly points out some 
4 wise and beneficent purposes to which it is 

4 subservient/ * * The study of philosophy, 

4 in all its various branches, both natural and 
4 moral, affords at every step a new illustration 
4 of the subject to which these investigations 
4 relate; insomuch that the truths of natural 
4 religion gain an accession of evidence, from 
4 every addition that is made to the stock of 
4 human knowledge. Hence, in the case of 
4 those individuals who devote themselves, 
, 4 with fair and candid minds, to the pursuits of 
4 science, there is a gradual progress of light 
4 and conviction, keeping pace with the en- 
4 largement of their information and of their 
4 views; and hence a strong presumption, that 
€ the influence which these truths have, even 
4 in the present state of society, will continu- 
4 ally increase in proportion as the order of 
c the material universe shall be more fully 
* Stewart's Ekm. Vol. II. 



INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 



143 



1 displayed by the discoveries of philosophy, 
' and as the plan of Providence intheadmini- 
< stration of human affairs, shall be more com- 
1 pletely unfolded in the future history of our 
c species.' * 

* Outlines of Mor. Phil, 



144 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE 



CHAP. IV. 

EXAMINATION OF DR CHALMER's REPRESENTA- 
TIONS OF THE NATURE OF THAT EVIDENCE, BY 
MEANS OF WHICH THE CONVERSION OF PAGAN 
NATIONS WAS E-FECTED IN THE FIRST AGES OF 
CHRISTIANITY, THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE EM- 
PLOYED BY THE AUTHOR OF CHRISTIANITY? 
AND HIS EARLY FOLLOWERS. 



Chalmers represents the conversion of the 
Gentiles to the Christian faith as effected ex- 
clusively by the exhibition of the External Evi- 
dences. c Let us go back,' he says, 6 to the 
4 first Christians of the Gentile world. They 
< turned from dumb idols to serve the living 
c and true God. They made a simple and 
' entire transition from a state as bad if not 
6 worse than that of entire ignorance, to the 
4 Christianity of the New Testament. Their 
' previous conceptions, instead of helping 



ORIGINALLY EMPLOYED, &C. 145 



1 them, behoved to be abandoned. They saw 
€ the miracles, — they acquiesced in them as 
'satisfying credentials of an inspired teacher; 
' they took the whole of their religion from 
6 his mouth ; — their faith came by hearing, 
c and hearing by the words of a divine mes- 
1 senger. This was their process, and it ought 
' to be ours.' * 

The ground which our author here occupies^ 
is altogether different from that which we 
have hitherto been employed in examining, 
The appeal here is to fact ; not to principles 
of reason and philosophy. Supposing the 
fact ascertained which Dr C. has affirmed^ 
disputants might still indeed divide upon the 
questions, whether the process by which Pa- 
gan nations reached conviction be the only ad- 
missible one ? — and whether, supposing others 
admissible, that process be the best possible 
in all circumstances? — But still, if the fact be 
as he states it; — if miracles unaided by previous 
conceptions, or by the character of the Uevela^ 
tion, effected the conversion of the Gentiles; 
— then it must be admitted that this fact fur- 
nishes a much sounder foundation for several 
of Dr C/s most important conclusions^ thaa 
any of the other grounds on which he has 
rested them. 

* § 195, 
N 2 



146 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE 



There happen, however, to be peculiar cir- 
cumstances connected with this fact, which 
render it a matter of some difficulty to esta- 
blish it in a clear and satisfactory manner. Tk 
C. has not cited any historical authority in its 
support. — In the absence of direct evidence, 
then, — it would seem necessary for the esta- 
blishment of this point, to shew in the first 
place, that the tf previous conceptions,' enter- 
tained by the Gentiles, were actually as bad, if 
not worse than entire ignorance/ — all previous 
conceptions, (it must be observed,) applicable 
to the subject from whatever sources derived — 
not merely those which were drawn from the 
established systems of superstition. — Some cir- 
cumstances will be mentioned in the sequel, 
which render the probation of this point, a 
matter by no means easy. — Meantime we may 
advert to certain facts, connected with the pro- 
mulgation of Christianity, which lead to the 
supposition, that 6 previous conceptions,' how- 
ever unnecessary and useless according to 
Dr C/s system, had actually some share in 
ushering Christianity into general recep- 
tion. 

One great object, if not the main design, of 
that peculiar system of polity, under which 
the Hebrews were disciplined, undeniably was, 



ORIGINALLY EMPLOYED, &C. 



147 



—to establish rational sentiments of religion, 
first among that people, and afterwards, by 
their means, among other nations. This whole 
economy seems constructed on the principle, 
that previous rational conceptions of religion 
tend to prepare the way for Christianity, * The 
foundation of this religion was laid in Judea, 
— where, by the institution of a system of strict 
retributive government, supernaturally sus- 
tained for a sees, the existence of an Immate- 
rial Deity of all moral perfection, the witness 
and the judge of human beings, had been 
rendered an article of popular belief. No 
sooner had this supernatural system, under 
which they were disciplined, produced its 
proper effect, than Jewish families were sent 
into all quarters of the world, carrying with 
them their creed, their worship, and their sa- 
cred books, now translated into the common 
language of the literary world. The spirit of 
philosophical investigation, availing itself of 
materials found in the remains of Patriarehism, 
and in the Jewish system, had in the more en- 
lightened communities of the earth, brought 
into question every principle of the establish- 
ed faith : the human mind laboured less un- 

* A principle which pervades Dr C.'s system is^ tLat Athe- 
ism is the proper introduction to Christianity. 



148 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE 



der the deadening weight of superstition, and 
had begun to recover its elasticity : — and 
freer, and less irrational conceptions in regard 
to the principles of religion, began to prevail. 
From Judea, Christianity accordingly made 
its way into those Gentile cities and com- 
munities farthest advanced in civilization : — 
into Corinth, Ephesus, and Athens, Thessa- 
lonica, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. The 
philosophers, who were generally suspected 
of entertaining Atheistical principles, did not 
indeed become converts to Christianity; but 
among the people, who were generally well 
informed, Christianity struck root. — It does 
not appear that at its promulgation, its great- 
est success svas among those who were least 
furnished with antecedent conceptions of the 
existence and true character of the Deity. 

Bui leaving this point : — In order to esta- 
blish the fact, that miracles unaided by * pre- 
6 vious conceptions,' or by the character of the 
revelation, effected the conversion of the Gen- 
tiles — it would be necessary, in the circum- 
stances of the case, to lead a proof, either 
that the evidence arising out of the character 
of the revelation, i. e. the internal evidence, 
w 7 as not exhibited to the Gentiles ; or that its 
exhibition was absolutely nugatory. Upon 



ORIGINALLY EMPLOYED, &c. 149 



the supposition that the internal evidence was 
actually offered in conjunction with the exter- 
nal ; it must necessarily be a point of great 
difficulty, to establish the entire inefticacy of 
the former. Historical evidence in proof of this 
point also, we may safely affirm to be altoge- 
ther wanting. The effect of the different 
kinds of Christian evidence, we know to be 
estimated in our times very variously by dif- 
ferent minds. While some lean mainly on 
the evidence of miracles of power, — while on 
them no other sort of evidence perhaps would 
have made sufficient impression \ — others 
assign much more weight to those of know- 
ledge. Some lay great stress on the direct 
testimony of the first publishers, viewed in 
conjunction with their characters; — and other 
minds are so constituted that to them no evi- 
dence seems so irresistible, [as that which ar- 
ises from the consonancy of the Christian 
doctrine with the principles and feelings of 
our rational and moral nature ; and the ad- 
mirable adaptation of the whole system to the 
wants and fears and hopes of humanity. Unlike 
those babes in Christ, who are startled at every 
frivolous objection with which infidels assail 
the character of Christianity, they consider the 
supposition as beyond measure incredible, that 



150 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE 



so pure, harmonious and appropriate asystem^ 
— so worthy of God to give, so important for 
man to receive, should have owed its origin to 
men suchas the first promulgators of the Chris- 
tian religion were, if really uninspired. 
Supposing the various evidences to have been 
exhibited in conjunction, it will be difficult to 
prove that the same variety of feeling, in re- 
gard to the relative effect and conclusiveness 
of the different species, did not prevail among 
the converts to whom the author alludes. The 
probability is, that the impressions at first 
made, would in many cases be of an indefin- 
ite nature ; difficult to be analysed cr referred 
to their proper causes : — and that time and a 
course of instruction would be requisite, for 
establishing faith on a stable and definite 

o 

basis. 

As there seems no method, then, of esta- 
blishing the conclusion, that the internal evi- 
dence, supposing it exhibited to the Gentiles, 
had no share whatever in effecting their con- 
version ; — it becomes requisite in order to 
prove that this great work was effected by 
means of external evidence exclusively, to 
shew that the internal evidence was not exhi- 
bited. The probation of this point, indeed, 
is not merely required for the establishment 



ORIGINALLY EMPLOYED, &C. 151 



of that particular fact which Dr C. has assert- 
ed, — but is indispensably necessary to the 
support of his whole scheme of evidence. — 
The conclusions which reason, unaided by re- 
velation, draws, regarding the existence, cha- 
racter, and administration of God, — from 
whatsoever source these conclusions may be 
derived, are, according to his system, abso- 
lute fallacies. As w r e are completely unqua- 
lified, therefore, for forming any judgment 
respecting the character of the revelation of- 
fered, every sort of evidence founded upon 
that character is equally nugatory. It is false 
philosophy to apply the 6 paltry experience' 
of man, to the 'counsels' of the Most High ; — 
it is ' presumption' on the part of c theologi- 
; ans' to 6 talk of the reason of the thing — 
the authority of every revelation rests < exclu* 
' sively upon the external evidence.' — To sup- 
pose then, that the publishers of Christianity 
would employ fallacious evidence ; — that they 
would represent the false and presumptuous 
conclusions of natural theology as trustwor- 
thy,— that men under the influence of the 
Spirit of Truth could act in this manner, — 
is not only self-contradictory but impious, 
If, then, instead of its being proved that they 
never did employ the internal evidence, — it 
should on the contrary be shewn that they did 



152 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE 



on many occasions exhibit it, representing the 
conclusions of reason on which it rests as ad- 
misssible and valid, — all other evidence of the 
fallacy of those principles on which our Au- 
thor's theory is built, cannot but be deemed 
altogether superfluous by Christians. 

Of the many distinguished persons employ- 
ed in the conversion of the heathen world, no 
one certainly is entitled to higher consider- 
ation and authority, than the great Apostle of 
the Gentiles. If we can by any means ascer- 
tain with certainty what his sentiments were, 
respecting the validity of theological conclu- 
sions founded on observation of the pheno- 
mena of nature, and in regard to the authority 
due to the moral perceptions of the human 
mind, — we may consider the point as in great 
measure determined. Now it happens that 
his sentiments upon these important subjects 
are distinctly recorded. 1 That which may be 
6 known of God is manifest among them,' (a- 
mong Pagans as well as others,) 6 for God 
6 hath manifested it to them. For His invisi- 
6 ble things, even his eternal power and God- 
' head, since the creation of the world, are 
c clearly seen, being understood by the things 
6 that are made? Q God left not himself 
' without witness, in that he did good, and 
* Rom. i. 19. 



ORIGINALLY EMPLOYED, &C 



153 



4 gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful sea- 
' sons, filling our hearts with food and glad- 
' ness.' * — < When the Gentiles, who have not 
' tlie law, do by nature the things contained 

* in the law, these persons having not the law, 
4 are a law unto themselves : who shew the 

* work of the law written in their hearts, their 
i conscience bearing witness, and also their 

* reasonings between one another, when they 

* accuse or else excuse each other.' f — No- 
thing can be more decided and unequivocal, 
than the opinion here expressed, of the au- 
thority due to the native moral perceptions 
of the human mind, and of the validity of the 
argument from Final Causes. Nay the rea- 
soning of the Apostle, grounded on principles 
which he here lays down, is intended to shew 
that men are altogether inexcuseable who do 
not yield themselves to the guidance of those 
intimations of moral truth which the consti- 
tution of their minds affords ; and who do not 
from 6 experience' and t observation' of ef- 
fects, infer the existence, character, and go- 
vernment of an c Invisible Intelligent Cause.' J 

* Acts xiv. 17. f Rom. ii. 15. 

X 1 There is perhaps nothing more thoroughly beyond the 
' cognizance of the human faculties than the truths of religion, 
' and the ways of that mighty and invisible Being who is the 
' object of it' — Chalmers. 

O 



1^4 INTERNAL EVIDENCE 



We are prepared therefore to expect, that 
this Apostle, in exhibiting to Gentiles the evi- 
dences of Christianity, would not restrict him- 
self to those which Dr C. considers as exclu- 
sively competent, but would avail himself 
also of those theological and moral conclu- 
sions which in his own opinion are trustwor- 
thy ; but which have been exalted by c delu- 
4 sion ' (according to the modern divine) to the 
4 circle of the sciences.' We are prepar- 
ed to expect that the exhibition of those mi- 
raculous powers with which he was gifted, 
high and important as those powers were to 
the full success of his mission, would not be 
the only evidence he would employ for esta- 
blishing the truth of his doctrine. We are 
prepared to expect, that having enunciated 
his doctrine, he would not uniformly refer to 
his own testimony corroborated by a miracle, 
as the sole criterion of its truth, declining any 
discussion of its reasonableness but that he 
would recommend it to the faith of his hear- 
ers, by the exercise of that * gift of wisdom* 
with which he was eminently endowed, and 
which has been well defined — c the talent of 
( arguing from the natural principles of rea- 

* son, for the conversion of philosophical in- 

* fidels.' t 

* $ 151. t Horsley. 



ORIGINALLY EMPLOYED, &C. 



155 



Accordingly, when called upon by the A- 
thenians, to declare to them that ' new doc- 
' trine' which it was his office to publish,-— 
we find that Paul resorts to the exercise of 
that talent as the means of recommending his 
religion to their reception. He begins his 
discourse with a plain exposition of some 
fundamental points of Christianity — by which 
its vast superiority over the established super- 
stition, is rendered apparent to reason. Af- 
ter declaring in sublime yet simple lan- 
guage, the existence, creative power, and 
universal providence of the Deity — after ad- 
verting to the duty incumbent upon all men,* 
to use those means which nature affords, of 
searching into these high religious truths- 
Paul proceeds to enforce conviction of these 
truths, by the use of that powerful * natural 
' argument of the schools/ which is drawn 
from the constitution of man. Availing him- 

* The sentiments of the Apostle are thus expressed in the 
language of modern philosophy. « To employ our faculties in 
1 studying those evidences of power, of wisdom, and of good- 
' ncss, which He has displayed in his works ; as it is the foun- 
4 dation in other instances of our sense of religious obligation, 

* so it is in itself a duty incumbent on us as reasonable and 

• moral beings, capable of recognizing the existence of an Al- 
1 mighty Cause, and of feeling corresponding sentiments of de- 
1 voticn.' — Stewart's Outlines of Mor. Phil. 



156 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE 



self of a well-grounded previous conception^ 
which chanced to be prevalent, (and which 
certainly did not, in his opinion, require c to 
' be abandoned'*) and citing the words in 
which that conception was expressed by one 
of their poets — he assumes it as the basis of 
an argument, which concludes in exposing 
the extreme absurdity of believing that a be- 
ing such as man, should be the offspring of 
inanimate matter. i In him we live and move 
4 and have our being ; as certain also of your 
i own poets have said, For we are also his off- 
€ spring. Forasmuch then as we are the off- 
' spring of God, we ought not to think that 
4 the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or 
i stone, graven by art or man's device.' f 

* ' Their previous conceptions, instead of helping them, be- 
' hoved to be abandoned. 1 — Chalmers. 

f Acts xvii. 29. 
A learned Scripture-critic has hazarded the conjecture, 
that this admirable address of Paul to the Athenians, was 
intended as an experiment, to ascertain how far the inter- 
nal evidence employed alone might be effectual for producing 
conviction : and he has represented the supposed experiment as 
having failed ; St Paul s attempts to introduce the Gospel into 
Athens, having proved, (as he conceives) almost entirely 
unsuccessful. — * It is not said that Paul wrought any miracles 
4 at Athens : and the little success with which he preached, 
gives reason to suspect that he wrought no miracles there. 
; Perhaps in this he acted by divine direction, to try what re- 
1 eeption the Gospel would meet with from learned and insist- 



ORIGINALLY EMPLOYED, &C. 



157 



At the commencement of that close and 
powerful train of reasoning, which the same 
Apostle addresses to his Roman converts, he 
proposes to establish the doctrine of ' justifi- 

* tive men, when offered to them merely upon the footing of 

* its own reasonableness. The truth is, if such an experiment 

* was any where to be made, in order to confute those in after 

* times, who should affirm that the general reception of the 

* Gospel in the first ages, was owing not to miracles, but to the 

* absurdities of Heathenism, and to the reasonableness of 

* the Gospel -doctrine, Athens surely was the place where the 
4 trial could be made with most advantage, and Paul's oration 
4 in the Areopagus was the discourse which shoiiid have con- 

* vinced reasonable men. Nevertheless at Athens, where the 

* human faculties were earned to the greatest perfection, the 

* Apostle was not able to convince uis hearers of the folly of 

* idolatry, nor of the reasonableness of worshipping the only 

* living and true God, by purity of mind and holiness of life. And 

* therefore, the Gospel which taught these sublime truths, was 

* rejected by the philosophers as unfit for the common people, 
' and they remained as much attached to their errors as before. — 
4 After having so unsuccessfully preached to the philosophers and 

* others in Athens, the Apostle judged it needless any longer to 

* attempt, by natural means, the conversion ot such a vain, un- 
' principled, frivolous people. And being allowed to use no other 
' means, he left them as incorrigible, and went forward to Co- 

* rinth, now become more considerable for the number, the learn- 

* ing, and the wealth of its inhabitants, than even Athens itself.' 
(Dr M'Knight) If Paul,during his abode in Athens, confined 
himself strictly to the use of the internal evidence, there is here a 

case, to which it cannot be shewn that there is any parallel,— of 

an inspired teacher of Christianity attempting to establish a Church 
m a Pagan City by means of oae species of evidence detac&f d 



158 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE 



6 cation by the grace of God, through the re- 
6 demption that is in Christ Jesus.' — And 
what are the evidences he employs for pro- 
ducing conviction of the truth of this funda- 

from the others. That the Apostles were in the habit of em- 
ploying the external and internal evidences in conjunction their 
writings fully prove. And there is no sufficient reason for sup- 
posing that, during his residence at Athens. Paul deviated from 
nis usual mode of procedure. — The Evangelist does not indeed 
inform us that miracles were performed by the Apostle in that 
city but the silence of the historian cannot be considered as by 
any means decisive of the point. Luke does not state that the 
Apostle performed any at Corinth ; although it appears from 
the writings of Paul that miracles were wrought there. But 
whatever may be in this, there seems scarce any room for doubt 
that another species of external evidence was appeale to by the 
Apostle at Athens. We are told that upon his arrival, he went, 
according to his uniform custom into the Jewish S>nagogue, 
where 1 he disputed with the Jews and devout persons.' The 
arguments from prophecy usually formed the subject of his dis- 
putations on thes»e occasions. ' These were the topics,' accord- 
ing to Dr M K. ' on which Pan 1 , insisted in all his sermons to 
1 the Jews and proselytes.' The ' experiment attributed to 
the Apostle, does not seem then to have been completely or 
fairly tried And if the Jews and proselytes at Athens, like 
those at Corinth and other cities, ' opposed themselves and 
4 blasphemed.' (of which by the way we are not expressly in- 
formed,) it follows that this species of external evidence, no less 
than the internal, failed at Athens. 

But whence did Dr M*&. derive his information, that Paul 
was so very unsuccessful in his attempts to plant Christianity 
at Atheas ?— There is nothing in the Scripture account of the 



ORIGINALLY EMPLOYED, &C. 159 



mental and peculiar doctrine of Christian- 
ity ? Does he appeal directly and solely to 
the high authority on which it stands ? On 
this occasion the evidence which he employs 
is of a different nature. Viewing this doc- 
trine in connection with that of the general 
corruption of mankind, and their consequent 
liability to punishment, under the administra- 
tion of a just and holy God, — he occupies 

transaction, indicating absolute failure. On the contrary, it 
appears that he not only converted Dionysius, Damaris, and 
' others with them. — but that besides these. ' others' were in a 
certain degree impressed by his eloquent display of the internal 
evidence, ' saying, we will hear thee again of this matter.' — Nor 
does it appear from subsequent history, that the seed thus sown 
by the Apostle, proved unfruitful. Eusebius mentions Dionysius, 
Paul s convert, as first bishop of Athens. — which ascertains the 
existence of a church there , (for the advantageous practice of 
ordaining bishops where there were no churches, is certainly not 
quite so ancient as the times of which we speak. ) And although 
the authority of Nicephorus is not of much account, no improba- 
bility attaches to his asseition, that Dionysius was ordained by 
Paul himself to that office. We have undoubted authority for 
itating that the Athenian church was re united by Quadratus 
after the persecution in which Publius, Dionysius's successor, 
suffered : — which seems to imply, that it had previous to the per- 
secution been in a prosperous state ; — a state which it very soon 
regained, for among the Christian churches, whose exemplary 
conduct Origen contrasts with the depravity of heathen commu- 
nities, that of Athens is the first named. — Eziseb. Rist.Eccl. Lib. 
III. cap. ±.—Niceph His. Ec. Lib. II c. 20.— Dion. Cor. Ep. 
ad Ath€n.ap. Euseb. Lib. IV. c. 22. — Orig. con. Cels. Lib. Ill: 



160 INTERNAL EVIDENCES 



the first two chapters of his Epistle in es- 
tablishing these previous doctrines, by re- 
ference to facts, and by appeals to the prin- 
ciples of reason and conscience. In parti- 
cular he overthrows the favourite plea of 
the Jews— their possession of the law and 
its privileges, — by a direct and powerful ap- 
peal to the natural sentiments of the human 
mind, regarding that correspondence which 
ought always to subsist between a man's ac- 
tions and his professions ; and to that moral 
judgment of the mind, by which the utter 
worthlessness of the latter, when contra- 
dicted by the former, is rendered evident. — 
Having thus 6 concluded,' that all are guilty 
before God, — not by an appeal to external 
evidence, — but by an argumentative discus- 
sion of the reasonableness of his conclusion, — 
he then goes on to establish his main doc- 
trine by a similar mode of pi oof, shewing 
its consistency with what he had already 
established ; — the consonancy of the media* 
torial scheme, with the known wisdom and mer- 
cy of God; — and its entire adaptation to all 
the circumstances of maris forlorn condition , 
which admitted of no other remedy. — After 
reading a single chapter of this Epistle, it is 
impossible to recal, without amazement, the 
declaration of Dr C. — 1 Reason is not entitled 



ORIGINALLY EMPLOYER &C. 161 



* to sit in judgment over these internal evi- 
4 dences, which many a presumptuous theolo- 
e gian has attempted to derive from the reason 

* of the thing.'* 

On another occasion, this Apostle makes 
the following appeal : — ' I speak as to wise 
4 men, judge ye what I say.' f — He is here 
shewing the inexpediency and danger of asso- 
ciating with heathens in their festivals ; — and 
is labouring to put a stop to this dishonour- 
able and pernicious practice on the part of his 
Corinthian converts. Does he ground his 
directions on this point 6 exclusively' upon the 
authority of God evidenced by miracles, and 
his own testimony ? — Dr C. alludes to the 'se- 
' vere reckonings which St Paul had with 
c some of his Churches,' — and to his be- 
ing at times ( called upon to school their 
' doubts and their suspicions.' The occa- 
sion on which the words quoted above were 
spoken, was one of this kind. Does the Apos- 
tle, on this occasion, use language similar to 
that which Dr C. employs for schooling the 
doubts and suspicions of modern converts? 

* A message has come to us bearing cn its 
( forehead every character of authenticity • 
f and is it right now that every question of our 

* § 192. f 1 Cor. x. 15. 



162 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE 



4 faith, or of our duty, should be committed to 
€ the capricious variations of this man's taste 
'or of that man's fancy? Our maxim — our 
6 sentiment ! — God has put an authoritative 
' stop to all this. He has spoken, and the 

* right or the liberty of speculation no longer 

* remains to us.' * The language which the 
Apostle here employs, and the mode which 
he adopts, of checking the practice which had 
been brought under his observation, are very 
different from those which alone are sanction- 
ed by Dr C.'s principles. The Apostle repre- 
sents to his converts the unreasonableness of 
this practice ; — the danger of their being 
drawn into idolatry by it; — and the natural 
incompatibility between that pure service 
which God requires, and those impure rites 
which accompanied the worship of heathen 
divinities. He represents to them the mani- 
fest hazard to weak consciences, from such a 
practice ; — and he takes occasion in the course 

* § 186. — I am far from insinuating that this mode of dealing 

* with doubts and suspicions and speculations/ is not on certain 
occasions justifiable and proper. — But the question is, Is this 
the only admissible mode — or, may not in other cases an ap- 
peal be proptily made, in support of christian doctrines and 
precepts, to the natural principles of reason and morals ? — On 
Dr C.'s principles there never can. According to the Apostle 
Paul's practice there may. 



ORIGINALLY EMPLOYED, &C. 165 



of the argument to point out the important 
distinction which subsists, between things law- 
ful and things expedient. In the same strain 
he reasons at considerable length upon the 
subject : and all this reasoning, it may be ob- 
served, for the justice and conclusiveness of 
which he appeals to their judgment, as rea- 
sonable and conscientious men, ( 6 I speak as 

* to wise men, judge ye what I say,') is em- 
ployed for convincing them of the improprie- 
ty of a practice, which there can be no doubt 
of his having had authority to prohibit at 
once : — for he alludes to it as c provoking the 

* Lord to jealousy/ 

It would be endless to discuss at length all 
the reasonings, resolvable into principles alto- 
gether unphilosophical and fallacious accord- 
ing to Dr C.'s views, — which the great apostle 
of the Gentiles employs, f for producing convic- 
tion in their minds of the truths of Chris- 
tianity. The subjects of his c reasonings ' 
might be mentioned, when sent for by Felix, 
that he might 6 hear him concerning the 
' faith in Christ,'* — reasonings which pro- 
duced a very sensible impression upon his 
heathen auditor. The admirable argument 



* Acts xxiv. 25. 



164 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE 



might also be referred to, by which he sup- 
ports the doctrine of the resurrection.* — 

* I. Cor. xv. 55. 
Dr C. alluding to this argument as used by Clemens Roma- 
mus, styles it an 4 illustration.' Admitting tins — it is an illustra- 
tion drawn from phenomena, declared to be produced by the 
power of God. How then should one part of the Divine proce- 
dure, which is unknown or 4 invisible,' be illustrated by another 
which bears no true analogy to it, and from which we are not 
entitled to draw any conclusion ? — But although it may suit 
Dr C.'s views to denominate this an 4 illustration,' it is in re- 
ality an argument in the proper sense of the term, and of 
the soundest and most conclusive nature. The Apostle mani- 
festly has it in view to confute those who denied the possibility 
of the resurrection ; and the object of his fellow-labourer Cle- 
mens is obviously the same, as appears from the expression he 
uses on concluding his argument, ' Nothing is impossible with 
4 God,' &c. Nothing could more effectually accomplish the 
purpose in view, than to exhibit an example of an equal degree 
of power exerted in a similar manner. Such analogical rea- 
sonings derive their great force and beauty from that important 
principle now recognised by philosophy ; — a principle suggested 
by observation of nature, but fully confirmed only by revelation % 
— that there is a certain unity [of character, which marks the 
procedure of divine Providence, extending itself throughout the 
whole moral and material universe, and pervading both the pre- 
sent and the future world. * There is a certain character, or 
« style, if I may use the expression } in the operations of divine 
4 wisdom, — something whicii every where announces amidst an in- 
4 finite variety of detail, an inimitable unity and harmony of design ; 
6 and in the perception of which, philosophical sagacity and geni- 
1 us seem chiefly to consist. 4 Nor is it only in the material and 
4 moral worlds, when considered as separate and independent sys- 
6 terns, that this unity of design is perceptible. They mutually 



ORIGINALLY EMPLOYED, &C. 165 



We might enlarge on the various reason- 
ings he employs for exhibiting the superiority 
in point of excellence, of the Christian sys- 
tem over the heathen superstitions and philo- 
sophical systems, as well as over the Jewish 
law*. By plainly displaying in the view of- 
reason and of conscience, the sublimity, native 
truth, and excellence of the religion he taught, 
he conceived that he adduced irresistible evi- 
dence in support cf his assertion, that it is 
6 the power of God and the wisdom of God.f* 
We shall not wonder that this Apostle was 
so much in the habit of drawing evidence 
from sources, denounced by Dr C. as inade- 
quate and injurious when we attend to the 
nature of the proofs, on many occasions ad- 
duced in support of the doctrines he taught, 
by Him whose word was with power, and who 
spake as never man spake. Were all the 

1 bear to each other numberless relations, which are more parti- 

* cularly remarkable, when we consider both in their combined 

* tendencies with respect to human happiness and improvement.' 
Stewart's Elements, Yol. II. 

* 1 Cor. 1 — Ep. to Hebrews, 
t See this subject excellently illustrated in Gerard's ' Dis- 
' sertations on the Genius and Evidences of Christianity.' 

X * They will not only lead you to misconceive that economy, 
' but to maintain a stubborn opposition to the only competent evi- 
4 dence that can be offered on the subject,' — Chalmers^ § M>9. 
P 



166 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE 



cases to be enumerated, in which our Lord 
refers to evidence of this description, a large 
part of what is recorded of his preaching must 
be transcribed. We have several striking ex- 
amples, in his conversation with Nicodemus, 
one in particular, in that passage where, en- 
deavouring to impress upon his hearer con- 
viction of the nature and necessity of rege- 
neration, he refers him to the nature of things 
as furnishing a sufficient confutation of the 
erroneous notion he seemed to entertain upon 
the suhject. The new birth, he argues, must 
be a spiritual one: a second natural birth, 
were it possible, is obviously unfit for answer- 
ing the purpose. 6 That which is born, of the 
c flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the 
c Spirit, is Spirit.' * This renovation being 
effected by the action of one immaterial be- 
ing upon another, cannot be the subject of 
any difficulty grounded on the nature or qua- 
lities of material substance. The process is 
completely imperceptible, unless by its effects. 
c Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be 
* born again. The wind bloweth where it hst- 
' eth, and thou hearest the sound thereof; 
6 but canst not tell whence it cometh and 
4 whither it goeth : so is every one that is born 
* John iii. 6, 



ORIGINALLY EMPLOYED, 167 



6 of the Spirit.' In this manner our Lord re- 
commends the doctrine under consideration 
to the reception of one who acknowledged 
himself convinced by miracles that Jesus was 
commissioned of God. This does not seem 
to imply an opinion, that the ' purity of the 

* Christian profession is tainted' by those i who 
' in addition to the word of God, talk also of 
' the reason of the thing ;' 6 appealing* thus 
c to principles of which' he, Dr C. * under- 

* takes to make out the incompetency.'* 

On one occasion, after having performed a 
miracle, which the bigotted prejudices of the 
spectators led them to attribute to demoniacal 
agencyf — our Saviour condescends to argue 
with them from principles of reason, on the 
justness of their conclusion : Shewing the 

* § 18i. Dr C. does not indeed explicitly affirm the incom- 
petency of these evidences, as addressed to a Jew. The Jews 
were specially commanded to pay regard to the nature of the doc- 
trine, in admitting the claims of a Teacher who appealed to 
external evidence in proof of the truth of what he taught. 
Deut. xiii. L 

f This belief in demoniacal agency, and in the reality of 
magic — a belief which was universally prevalent in the Hea- 
then world, induced the early apologists of Christianity to lay 
much less stress in their writings, on the argument from mira- 
cles of power, than oa that from prophecy, and the other evi- 
dences. 



368 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE 



extreme absurdity of supposing that such a- 
gency should be thus exerted for the destruc- 
tion of its own influence.* On a multitude of 
occasions, his mode of arguing is precisely 
that of the moralist, grounded on phenomena 
of nature and of providence. Examples might 
be given in his reasoning on the subjects of 
divorce, polygamy, the Sabbath, &c. — How 
admirably does he give force to that impor- 
tant doctrine which regards God as the wil- 
ling hearer of prayer, by the appeal he makes 
to the natural principle of parental affection. 
' What man is there of you, if his son ask 
c bread, will he give him a stone, — if he ask a 
6 fish, will he give him a serpent? — If ye then 
4 being evil, know how to give good gifts unto 
c y;-ur children, how much more shall your 
' Father who is in heaven give good gifts unto 

• them that ask him V — In support of another 
very important doctrine of the gospel, the par- 
ticular superintendence of Providence, — our 
Saviour draws a very strong analogical proof 
from natural religion. ' Behold the fowls 
6 of the air, — they sow not, neither do they 
fi reap ; yet your Heavenly Father feedeth 
c them — are not ye much better than they ? 
< — Consider the lilies of the field how they 

* grow : If God so clothe the grass of the 

* Matt. m. %L 



ORIGINALLY EMPLOYED, &C. 169 



' field, how much more shall he clothe you, 
« O ye of little faith P — Dr C. entertains 
no small degree of contempt for those, who 

* repose/ as he expresses it, ' a very strong 

* confidence in natural religion, and think 

* that upon the mere strength of its evidence, 
e they can often pronounce with a considera* 

* ble degree of assurance on the character of 
6 the divine administration.' * Our Saviour in 
this passage reprehends those, who, upon 
the mere strength of evidence derived from 
natural religion, did not pronounce with a 
considerable degree of assurance upon the 
character of the divine administration. — One 
example more shall only be added, of the 
kind of evidence which our Lord at times em- 
ployed, for producing conviction of the truth 
of his religion. Adverting to the surprise ex- 
pressed on one occasion by his auditors, in 
consequence of the knowledge and wisdom 
which his discourses displayed, he thus ap- 
peals to the character and tendency of his doc* 
trine, in proof of the divinity of its origin . 
< My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent 
c me : if any man will do his will, he shall 

* know of the doctrine whether it be of God^ 
i or whether I speak of myself : he that speak- 

* 1 173. 



170 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE 



6 eth of himself, seeketh his own glory ; but 
* he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the 
€ same is true, and no unrighteousness is in 
« him.' 

Imitating the example afforded them by the 
Author of Christianity, and his inspired Apos- 
tles, their early followers assiduously employ- 
ed the internal evidence, as one of the most 
powerful weapons of that warfare which they 
were called to wage. In urging upon heathens 
the claims of the gospel to their acceptance, 
the early advocates of our faith contrast its 
doctrines and precepts with the established 
systems of superstition ; they call upon their 
hearers to judge between these opposite sys- 
tems, from the internal character of each ; ap- 
pealing to their understandings and conscien- 
ces for the truth of Christianity. Many of 
their writings, which have been preserved, 
are full of such appeals, urged at times in a 
manner so powerful and impressive, as to bring 
immediately to recollection the similar ad- 
dresses of their inspired predecessors. Con- 
ceiving it competent for human reason to 
form general conclusions respecting the na- 
ture and character of Deity, sufficiently 
trustworthy to destroy the credibility ot every 



ORIGINALLY EMPLOYED, &C. 171 



system, the doctrines of which contradict 
these conclusions ; they exhibit Polytheism 
as full of such doctrines, and call upon its 
votaries to reject it upon that ground.* 

* " Tk Tz eorsZiu. k, ra pooia ccl-uv ho^ui^ffi 1 .^ akXoji ccXXa hs- 
ftara, avrc7s r'>ht£ivoi' <r??v f*\v <r5 aim ctrisct*, Ojlotv. 'Xl? %l 

iolv <F?Aiv viz;, xav n <zru<nv r^xruivn, pr, \y£<rr,; <rav xv^iovhrm* 

yo'ic&r %tb yoio vctv$ xaff & rrXaffe-.rci;, ra, cs ^oi^eia yuo}; * 7S 

^vutxtyx s xitr^r.ijflKi" Athenag. Apol. 

wxruv tft*TMf etxcvx eilr.utxzy'/ixiv, x}\ (,^v Ik ^r,; /xxXfcexr,* 8- 
uxXal^i erzsxa. Tt; tTt&jE /uviXo* ; n 'iirrfciy hzlx ; t!s vivstc 2/> 
cem> ; r/s % XiZa; iQvfwnv ; ri; uiua. Wi%uv sy etvTa.7; ; ri rig Ci^- 

fAX 5r*£;;Vft>SV ; 5T*f 2' iv Ttz O.VTCJV h<p6aXft.%$ TClWTKt fsXi'TOVTaS ; Tig 

ynrui \ M6>& o rout oXut G^Y^^oyi;. a x^orzyvr,; <zu.<?y,d roixrci 
*yu./,fi% iu^'^yev r,ua; rev cc»?ocot v \<xXcktv.- o %t Oa^t<@" y^^v, 
*tzo>c; 'Eix&v, <roXv ri Tr,s ccXr.eux; a.-TTotheuy, sgyov i<?i xnfo* yeiguv 
Arjixeuv. e H fiiv yko ra O-s etxcuv, o Asy©" ecvra- xai vice <rS yg 
yvnffii; o S^os Xoyt;, Quire; ao^nwTrot <p&>s" uxu\ it th Acyx, o ay- 
iou-rc;. AXr,£i>os o vv$ o Iv av^Wcra/, o xclt iizcvsc <r£ Qik, x) xuf 
IfjL'AuHTiv 5i« 7Ht5 yiyi^r^OLi Xiyo.u.iv<&) tJj xo.to. x-^obla.* Qoorsiffti 
tm/ Siia trot£aeixa.£c{u,i*o; Acyu^ £ tocvtw >.oyixo$. AvtWsr* c\ r» 
ocu/u.iw, t« ynyivxs, yr.tv'S ilx&v to. a.ya,/.fAa.ro(. roc avlsceixtXct) <7Top- 
pu> rn; ukr,£euz; itrixcttecv ixfActyfov Ka.rv.^aU%7a.u Clem. Alex*. 

44 v Oocc gi il (An ra. rns <tI?zu>; hpuv, rz7; xoivcc7$ inolats %oyJf\h* 
tvvctyooivo*Ta,) (AiTu,ri$Yi7i t^s tvyiwfAwuis ockmo^tcx,: tuv Xiyofitsveaf 
U yu.o £ h hct?g'<py) Giouvnra,!) vroXX?/; cclrr, xa.7ny f no-:ojs ffV'ja.yosium 
tg7$ <?oXXo7; i(£,!QuTiu<roLi rov crs^i ccyecXf/Aruv Xoyov as &eea* 3 
^ ro tfioi ruv yzvoftivcuv, \x %%ucrii, x*i keyvox, x. iXiQccv-ros xeti Xi$H 
u; T^ffKvvrtiritoi a^tuv ukX* h xotvb ivvoix cixutrii iwoeiv, on Qi6$ 
kdzpu; \ri> vXn ^cc^rhf vfo TjfiaTdi i> a^vx, 01 * vXats fere ii&g&sttn 



172 INTERNAL EVIDENCE 



Entertaining no doubt respecting the univer- 
sality and immutability of moral distinctions 
perceived by conscience, they appeal to * the 
moral perceptions of the human mind, as af- 

pogQv/xivc;. ej; xxt tixova n twx cufxZoXa. txsivx yiyvou-i*eis. Alt- 
mo iv6iu$ Xsytvm tx <rio) t&iv tcIhtuv ^/s^Jittarwy, art xx eia 
ffvyxoiTx <tpci roy tSnfti&pyov ck'yx n Tiel t5 iti t rxtn Qiv o^r.ui- 
aoyyiTccvTes 9 xxi ra$i%otTo$ k xvtzpvuivros tx oka x) tv6'ib>$ mo) r§ 
evyyiH; i&iyvieek n }.oyt%h ^y;/^ K7;^;-rr« ftiv a tiu; ioc*x£iv «- 
'/Hi 0sy;, <p'tA.T2GX ava/'.^^eiv^i $v?ix:v to 'too, to* xt'icxvtx' k) Smb 
to 9^05 Ixeivav <pl\rc;v, yT:^Twl^£T«; x) to* txvto, t^sutov <zxri 
t:~$ Itnti <Tacx?r,Fxv7X $f St xatTiexivafi ftafyrwr Us ££ir£#\£s 
fxiTX Seta; tvvxjxiu; x \\^<TiXi xr,ov\xi rot vie) TV ©s» x) 7%; /3«« 
ftXeia: xvtx \oyov" Ori^ren con. Cels. 

Vultis et ex operibus ipsius tot ac talibus quibus contine- 
mur. quibus sustinemur quibu* oblectamur. etiam quibus exter- 
remur : vultis ex ipsius animae testimonio. conrprobemus ? Quae 
licet carcere corporis pressa licet institutionibus prayis circum- 
scripta licet libidinibus ac concupiscentiis evigorata, licet falsis 
Diis exancillata, cum tamen resipi>cit ut ex crapula, ut ex somno, 
fit ex aliqua valetudine et sanitatem suam patitur, deum no- 
minat hoc solo quia proprie verus hie unus Dens, bonus et mag- 
nus. * * O Testimonium animae natuxaliter Chiktianae . Ter- 

TULLIAN. 

* '* Tig yap kx ulei KssV.v Tzxit^cyov. L'ix It Tat csrx7ox mnm 
vh* M^-;y xxTWX'iyetv ; x) %£iT*x fitxcd Tot} Slot; t<rtMfta^Bt%, * * 
Ti pot XoiTCv xaraXiyiiv tg fiei riCJiitiuvos, x. ArcX^svtcg, 77 A/a- 
>i/Vs, k) c Hpccx?Acs * * * ~CL Tt;; C4X>04X$ to>v xtoh? aztiZZ; 
ffsip'/iff-dnTuv x, <*i?.c7spise,v UtayytXXoftS94Mt * * * 'Huits cs x) S-icv 
sfjcoXoyxftiv, aX/.' Ua tcv] xt'ictw, xat -rcifjr/:?, k GfifiiXtycv tzIi tv 
txvtc; xofftM, xxi srgcvcix toL kolvtcl OiCizetrtai iTi^dfii^x' aXX* 

vev IvTus B-zif 0; xx^itxffxit Zpas, tiKaiQTros.yelv. >l itw 

Xts-siti*. Theoph. Antiocb. 



ORIGINALLY EMPLOYED, &C. 173 



fording clear and determinate data, from which 
the moral character of the Deity may be de- 
duced; and upon these data they rear up ar- 
guments subversive of Polytheism, and corro- 
borative of Christian Trutn. They repel at- 
tempts, to level the miracles of the Gospel 
with the prodigies then current in the pagan 
world, by referring to the dignity and impor- 
tance of the end for which the Christian mi- 
racles were wrought. * They display the rea- 

Clem. Alex, adversus Gentes — passim. The arguments so fre- 
quently employed by /the early' Apologists drawn from the im- 
moral character of the objects of heathen worship, are obvi- 
ously inconclusive, unless the immutability of moral distinctions 
is acknowledged. If we have no reason to form any concep- 
tions regarding the moral character of Deity, the flagitious cha- 
racters of the Heathen divinities could form no reason for de- 
nying their existence or influence. — They do not however ex- 
plicitly refer to this principle as the foundation of then' argu- 
ment ; nor was this necessary, as it was virtually acknowledged 
by their opponents, who sometimes brought forward objections 
againsl Christianity, which had no other foundation. 

* Msir y romuv exurev Twees tcov n r'd 'Aci-ln yi'.Oft'iv&v, £ 
<rwv mot <r5 \v\7h (ro?xulvc>)\>, 72s d /xh Ik atroGatro:, £ rcnv ojQi- 
XigfAtwi ei: 'h'&Lv Itfoivlo&utrrj, K«,t si/.a'oway 7'SjV era's 7ci> :tt} run 0£cv, 
Wtv etTetv art <n?ivr&ov fth u>; k-< yzvopivois rots tio) 'ircx l<r- 

rc^auivc/; , cl re?s tfioi ts TlnoxowY <rli 'Aa/Vss ; ri psv yro F>xXe~ 
(/.tr/i n <r^ovctst 7% Trio) rov *Aot$i>x,\> <7ru.(>o-})-\a, iTO'ty/uLzriviTo ; k tI 

XKibeiKwro, ax %Xfts ?Ayziv hf&zt$ ol, *t«v to. V-ei <rs? 'ln<r8 ctr,ya- 
(jciQcty £ 7X7 7v%x?av fooijuiv ctvr ckcyia,* Tfci 78 7a'jTa, y<yoviv%i y 7S 
7ov Qtov fcZxA.r,r£'Zj curt-fat rfo },d 'Irfi «: f&TVowi 7o7$ 

>Jyo>. Orig. con, Cek. 



174 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE 



sonableness of the doctrines objected against 
—and repel the objections, by sifting their 
character, shewing their umeasonableness,and 
exhibiting the internal evidence of the truth 
of tliose doctrines against which the objections 
are directed. * 

* Among the Christian doctrines which chiefly proved stum- 
bling-blocks in the way both of Jews and Gentiles, was that of 
the Resurrection ; and for producing conviction of the truth of 
this doctrine, no argument was so commonly employed by the 
early advocates of Christianity, as the analogical one used by 
the Apostle Paul. They referred to those displays of power mani- 
fested in the creation of all things, in the preservation of the 
order and laws of nature, in the general mode of continuing ex- 
istence by decay and reproduction — as furnishing decided proof 
of the possibility of the renovation of the body after death, and as 
giving probability to the doctrine of Christianity on that subject. 
— The employment of this argument by Clemens Romanus, has 
already been referred to. " ''ilxuvs, ccyKtrr.Tci^ tv,v xxrec xuiigv 
yivo l U:v/}v a.\ci?u<ji\' r,jwA^<x. kcu yy| uvn- cx.tr iv nftiv SifXttftn.' xoiftoc . ui % vv£ y 
icvir^roti %ftega 9 r, nutou cc-zreiffiv, l^i^^irai. ' Idupiiv rv$ xet0-7rx$ '$ 

ets t£v y-KVy xstt {b&tiHvrc** ffTrippdT&JV, clrtvot t 7r'irf\uxiv el$ yw 
Qn.oa, yjuva., }izk6et psows;, etr \k <r%; haXiHTicos n fJt.iya.XY) tv- 
vcl ( Ui$ TYii vrvovcla; <rs ^-exo-a ccuzntiv aura, xott Ix t8 ives tfXetcvx 
kki IxZ'ioei xkp-ttcv." Clem, ad Cor. Ep. I. " "Ov roo^rov 
yst/7 -r>3v aivfjy ovrx; i&omtrt^ to* av-ov hy^^'i^cc roexo-i 'hut, ri 
tkic-^oct ra$ ulpsulvMi tk oc.br&> aoi?u,* k a<p£cc(>er;cts x) ffuvxfflx; xu?ict- 
huFwctu Just Mar Ap. I. ' Quippe etiam- terras de coeio disci- 

* plina est, arboris vestire post spolia, flores denuo colorare, her- 

* bas mrsus imponere, exhibere eadem quae ab sum pta sin t semina; 
6 aec prius exhibere quasi absumpta. Mira ratio : de fraudatrice 



ORIGINALLY EMPLOYED, &c. 



175 



Had the sentiments of the Author of Chris- 
tianity and his early followers, regarding the 
validity and importance of the internal evi- 
dence, been in any degree disputable ; refer- 
ence might have been had to later authorities, 

1 servatrix ; ut reddat intercipit ; lit custodiat perdit ; ut integret, 
{ vitiat : ut etiam ainpliet priiis decoquit. Siquidem uberiora et 

* cultiora restituit quam externiinavit lie vera foenore interitu, et 

* injuria usura : et lucro dainno semel dixerimuniversa conditio reci- 

* diva est. Quodcunque conveners, fuit ; quodcunque amiseris nihil 

* non iterum est. Omnia in statum redeunt quum abscesserint ; 

* omnia incipiunt quum desierint. Ideo finiunturut fiant. Ni- 
1 liil deperit nisi in salutem. Totus igitur hie ordo revolubilis reram, 
1 testatio est resurrectionis mortuorum.' Tertul. de Resur. Car. 

u Oo*]h »y r) yn yivouityi tri v-ryo^'iV a.xofla'rxivzfog' xxriffxiC- 

aTi'J »V X'JTTIV X, K<&iiXOff t U.nG-ZV 0 QiOg ^iOt TKVTO^X'Z'UV jgkaStft X, CTJ?- 

fteirm x, <pvrZt^ ffx'oXH to Xoitov tw h r&rois <rsjx.iXixv xai Stailpogoi 
itaXXovriv x) vkrjuv, x) cri $t uvt&v ^zixvvTKt % ccjctsc&ffi:, a$ oeiypoc 
rn; (jc.i}.X&fn» iffiffQa,i a,vct?a.<nu? dvra.fiojv a\hoj<7roov" Theoph. ad 
Autol. Lib. ii. " Akkcc x) to ccov?tff§a,i ffi vtxgoy; lyttftifQa? 

* * ©iO; cot ToXka Tixf/,ri(>it& iTiTy&xvWiv ti; to Vifivtiv avToo' u 
yag /SyXs/, xotTuvor,ffM Tr,v tuv xctiguv x) r.fjLioZt xcti vuxtojv Ti\%VT?,<i y 
9rw$ x) avToi T%\iv[cL x) cnUttTttf t\ Vi x) kyA h T&ii cxio pdr suv xa,i 
zctOvTuii ytvo/x(v'/i iZ.czva.?o:ffi;, x) txto tl; jQgwtn tojv o\\$^wzm ; 
ei yoco TV%oi «cr«v xoxxo; trim % tudi Xot'Tsov ffTtgfixTOJV i7ro\-i fikn- 
6ti u; rrjy y?jv, tomtov i&o$vn<rxu x) "kvivtti^ utu, fayefg£]at x) yUC\?A 
?u%us' &C ravTa li croevra. \\ioyu h t5 0ss ffop!x, &; to l-rt- 
^£%oci x, 2/« Tovruv, art ^uvchtc's Ifiv o Qios vrotrifcti tkv xaQokutw «- 
ta.toc.ffiv dtfavjcov avfytoVouv. * * fm »v acr'ifn, ocXXa. tfirius," The- 
opli. ad Aut. L. 1. There is nothing surprising in the earnest- 
ness with which Theophilus here presses the analogical argu- 
ment upon his unbelieving friend, since he declares in the words 



176 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE 



which perhaps in such circumstances would 
have gone far to establish the point. Any 
such reference cannot however now be neces- 
sary, since it has been indisputably proved, 

winch immediately follow, that to this argument, in conjunc- 
tion with that derived from prophecy, he owed his own faith. 
if Ka,i yzo Xyoj !jpti&89 rxro IguQxi. a>.kx >Z» xoCla.s-A.r&i aura 
ViZivv, KCti iTirw^Guv l-oa7: ygei$z7z rut dyluv <zrg4(pr,T&v 9 ci x) 

gg«ei#ftf Si « TVivparo; ra. vrzayzycicrai. a t£c<tu) yiyoti, x) cat 
hif&ra r,vi rs',-ru) ytw&TtU, x <rx\ isregjg^KSM mix ra^ei a.r:xo\t7^Y,ffi- 
Wij ocrcleiz^ »y kxcuv rat yivou'ivto* TcctvxTri^ojv run ix aTt^ai." 
The means therefore by which the doubts of this distinguished 
person were removed, furnish a proof from fact of the impor- 
tance of combining the internal with the external evidence. — 
It must be confessed, however, that soon after the time of 
Theopliilus. the theological conclusions of reason, and of con- 
sequence the internal evidence of Christianity, came to be con- 
sidered by many as not merely useless, but destructive of that 
sublime faith, which was conceived the distinguishing mark of 
the mature Christian. The following passage from the spurious 
wcrk attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite, is a fair specimen 
of the transcendental speculations which then became prevalent 
concerning the Deity, and of the notions entertained re- 
specting the Sources whence all true knowledge cf his cha- 
racter and adininistration are to be derived The sitnila- 
rity in certain respects between these refined speculations, 
and others of more modern date, will be readily apparent. 

ii Kc) XX, Ifi GiC; 7) 7U» 0>1ct)V OVOi it TIM TU)V y IVUOXlTtUC X, 

s» ar&tfi ca^A ;r/ } xxi Iv zizvi cCtiv, x) Ix xtzvru* Tuei y>\(L(n<.C\zi> x) 
\\ &2iYG: klivl' xxi yctg toZtcs, Itcu; vi^i Qzx /JyoutV x) tx run ofjaf 
asemirsn vftvetrxt xcf,z rjjy teeitlat &*a\syux* uv l?)* a*nc$* x) int 
*&0*s n Stulirn rS 0;5 yvvfiSt h Si mctIx; yamfztfuni x%,x 



ORIGINALLY EMPLOYED, &C 



177 



that not only were the intellectual and moral 
perceptions of the human mind with the the- 
ological conclusions deducible by reason from 
these perceptions and from observation of na- 
ture, held trustworthy by the inspired publish- 
ers of Christianity; — but that the evidences 
interdicted bv Dr C. as incompetent and fal- 
lacious, were exhibited and urged both on 
Jews and Gentiles in the earliest ages of 
Christianity. Is Dr C. in possession of evi- 
dence sufficient to establish the fact, that the 
exhibition of these evidences was absolutely 
nugatory, and had no effect whatever in lead- 
ing the Gentiles to embrace the truth as it is 
in Jesus ?— Indisputable evidence cf this fact 
would have been necessary to entitle him to 
make the assertion he has hazarded regarding 
the means by which the Gentiles were convert- 
ed. Butsofaris he from being prepared to fur- 
nish any proof of this fact, that he appears to 
be in possession of evidence capable of com- 
pletely disprovingit; — evidence which entitles 
him to affirm, in the face of his former assertion, 
that the internal proofs which he has all along 
been labouring to subvert, were those to which 

tout ivc-jfiv, orett 0*2$ r&v oft&v Vav]a>v otfoToit) if-fjci £ lecvfai 
\t<*{fn Tic?,- uTS^tpuifftt aTcltCitj Ixeth* k tzei rat i,y^iJiVi^7^^x^ 
hi tjj? ffo^tx; Kt&iCikc<Liz-cu,:\ic;. Dion. Areop. Dc dir. Nom, Lib, 7. 
■ Q, 



178 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE 



the conversion of the Gentiles was chiefly ow- 
ing. For in the same work which has now in part 
been subjected to examination, he on one oc- 
casion thus expresses himself. 6 In these 
4 days, the truth as it is in Jesus, came to the 
' minds of its disciples,recommended by itsno- 
c velty,by its grandeur, by the powerand recen- 
c cy of its evidences, and above all, by its vast 
' and evident superiority over the fooleries of 
1 a degrading paganism.' *« — By ' the power 
6 and recency of its evidences/ the Author 
had doubtless in view, the power and recency 
of the external evidences — because evidence 
of no other class is admitted into his system. 
€ The truth as it is in Jesus came, 9 then, he 
tells us, c recommended by its novelty, its 
6 grandeur,' (qualities which could scarcely 
according to his system form any recommen- 
dation,) and by its external evidences. e The 
* truth as it is in Jesus,' must mean here the 
Christian system of doctrines and morals ; — 
it cannot possibly mean the miracles and 
testimony or other evidences ; because this 
would be to inform us that the evidences came 
recommended by the evidences. The Gospel 
system of doctrines and precepts came then, 
recommended by its external evidences, and 
* § 191. 



ORIGINALLY EMPLOYED, &C. 179 



\ above all,' — i. e. it came recommended by 
something even more powerful (in our Au- 
thor's opinion) than the evidence of testimony 
and miracles. This most powerful of evi- 
dences, by means of which the truths of Chris- 
tianity made their way to the minds of the Gen- 
tile converts, was we are informed, their c vast 
c and evident superiority over the fooleries of 
f a degrading paganism.' — This superiority, 
6 vast and evident' as it unquestionably is, ne- 
ver could have been apparent, if the pagans 
had not compared 6 the truth as it is in Jesus/ 
with the ' fooleries' of their degrading super- 
stition. We must presume, that before dis- 
covering this superiority, they had instituted 
a comparison between the doctrine of One 
Seif-existent Deity, adorned with all moral 
perfection, — the All-wise Designer, and Al- 
mighty maker of the universe, — the righteous 
Ruler of the World, — the bountiful Bestower 
of every good gift; — and the c fooleries' of a 
multitude of capricious deities sporting with 
the lives and fortunes of mankind. We must 
presume that they compared the spiritual ser- 
vice which that Great Being approves, — the 
scheme of reconciliation through the Re- 
deemer, — the purity of the gospel morals, — 
the gracious aids afforded to human weakness, 



180 INTERNAL EVIDENCE 



and that life and immortality which it brings 
to light, — with the childish, the obscene, and 
the bloody rites of Paganism, — the laxity of 
its morals,— its insufficiency to inspire sted- 
fast hope, or to calm the anxious fears cf its 
votaries. — But upon the principles previously 
advanced by our Author, the unfortunate pa- 
gan could have instituted no such compari- 
son. He was bound to consider the sublime 
and harmonious system of the gospel as pre- 
cisely on a level with the fooleries of his an- 
cient faith. He was bound to look to the ex- 
ternal evidence alone ; and if he found it sa- 
tisfactory, 6 to take his lesson as he found it.' 
He 6 had a right to sit in judgment over the 
( credentials of Heaven's ambassador,' — that is, 
over the external evidence ; — but ' he had 
* no right' thus ' to sit in judgment over the 
i information he gives,' 6 more than over the 
1 information of a visitor from worlds beyond 
6 the limits of our astronomy.' — But for what 
purpose should we suppose such a comparison 
to be instituted? — How should the pagan 
discern the superiority, to which such power- 
ful efficacy is attributed by our Author? Upon 
his principles, so far is such superiority, how. 
ever vast, from outweighing all the external 
evidence; — so far is it from forming any ground 



ORIGINALY EMPLOYED, 181 



of belief, that it could not even be perceived. — 
The 6 previous conceptions' of the pagan, 6 so 
* far from helping him, behoved to be aban- 
c doned/ He had no previous conceptions 
no standard in his own mind, by which he 
could form any judgment as to what was fit or 
unfit for the Deity to reveal. He had 6 no 
c experience of God' — 4 nothing was more 
6 thoroughly beyond the cognizance of his 
1 faculties than the truths of religion' — he 
had no means whatever of determining, with 
the lowest degree of probability, that the 
Christian system was more worthy of God, or 
more subservient to the highest interests of 
man, than the fooleries of his own faith.— 
And yet, so omnipotent is truth — so impossi- 
ble is it to conduct consistently an argument 
which proposes to establish the fallacy of 
primary elements of reason and morals, — that 
we are enabled to state on the authority of 
Dr. C. that even when sunk in pagan dark- 
ness, there is still a chord in the human heart, 
which vibrates at the sound of religious and 
moral truth, and with responsive voice pro- 
claims its superiority over error* 
a 2 



182 



CONCLUSION. 



It thus appears, — that the principles upo& 
which Dr Chalmers' system of Christian Evi- 
dence is constructed, not only subvert the 
conclusions of natural theology with the in- 
ternal evidence, but destroy also the external 
proofs } — and that the various arguments he 
employs in support of his system, are destruc- 
tive of each other, and of the objects at which 
he aims. — If that perception or inference of 
the understanding, by which we are made 
acquainted with the existence of Efficient 
Causes, from contemplation of their effects 
and operations, is disowned : — if our capacity 
to infer from the nature and qualities of ef- 
fects, the intellectual and moral nature and 
qualities of their causes, is denied ; — if the 
immutability of those moral distinctions which 
are perceived by man, is rejected ; the argu- 
ment from miracles is rendered inconclusive. 



CONCLUSION. 



183 



the credibility of Christian testimony cannot 
be ascertained, and the terms which Reve- 
lation employs to express moral qualities 
belonging to the Deity, become unintelli- 
gible. If, on the other hand, these prin- 
ciples are admitted, they furnish indubi- 
table ground for theological conclusions, 
which justify opposition to every pretended 
revelation, containing doctrines or precepts, 
found on examination to be of irrational 
or immoral nature, on whatever evidence 
of an external kind such pretensions may 
rest. It has been shewn, that these prin- 
ciples are acknowledged by the most distin- 
guished philosophers ; that the conclusions 
of natural theology are reached by processes 
strictly inductive ; that the correspondence 
between these conclusions and the doctrines 
of Revelation, furnishes evidence of the truth 
of the latter, of a legitimate kind ; and that 
both the internal and external evidences of 
Christianity, proceeding on similar principles 
—principles strictly consonant with those of 
the inductive philosophy, are of the soundest 
and most philosophical nature. It has farther 
been shewn that the evidences which Dr C. 
rejects as fallacious and pernicious, were 
deemed conclusive and important by the in- 



184 



CONCLUSION. 



spired publishers of the Gospel and their im- 
mediate followers, and were by them employ- 
ed in conjunction with the external proofs, in 
ushering Christianity into general reception. 

Dr C.'s scheme of evidence appears to pos- 
sess an advantage over all others in this re- 
spect, that no antecedent conclusions of a 
theological and moral nature are required, in 
order to enable the mind to judge of the 
truth or authority of Revelation. It professes 
to apply itself to every mind, how vacant so- 
ever ; and disdains those aids which have 
usually been considered as advantageous, if 
not indispensible to the successful exhibition 
of Christian evidence. If Dr C. had limited 
his endeavours to the conversion of the tho- 
rough-paced sceptic ; if he had proposed to 
himself no other end, than by means of tes- 
timony and miracles to produce Christian 
faith, in minds which are insensible to 
moral and intellectual perceptions common 
to human beings, or which are incapable of 
discovering the legitimacy of conclusions 
drawn by reason from these primary percep- 
tions; — his attempt would have been harmless, 
and might have passed unnoticed. But when 
he makes common cause with the sceptic ; 
when he adopts his principles, or rather his 



CONCLUSION. 



185 



negation of principles ; — when on the part of 
Christianity he forms an alliance with Atheism 
the basest of her foes, and when sacrificing the 
Interna] Evidence as the seal of this monstrous 
confederacy, he turns the arms of Christian- 
ity against Natural Religion, her ancient and 
faithful ally ; — his proceedings no longer pos- 
sess the character of harmless inanity. — Nor 
can the imaginary advantage above adverted 
to, — an advantage which even were it real, is 
too limited in extent to be of any great ac- 
count, — be permitted to screen from expo- 
sure, principles so extensively destructive as 
those which are employed to obtain it. Ad- 
mitting that there exist in nature a few ho- 
nest Atheists, the prototypes of that person- 
age to whose views Dr C. has accommodated 
the Evidences of Christianity and suppos- 
ing it certain (instead of impossible) that they 
must 3 in consistency with their sceptical 
speculations, be thus convinced of the truth 
of Christianity ; — would such an accession 
to the Christian community, balance the un- 
conquerable aversion produced in the minds 
of unbelievers of almost every other class, 
by the view which he has given of Chris- 
tian Evidence ? 

But supposing the assumption of those prin- 



186 



CONCLUSION. 



ciples on which Dr C. has founded the Chris- 
tian argument, were attended with no such 
disadvantage ; and laying out of view the in- 
calculable injury which must be sustained by 
the Christian cause, if its adversaries shall at 
any time find themselves warranted by the 
conduct of its friends, to dismiss from their 
view the Internal Evidence ; what conceiva- 
ble advantages can render eligible, o allowa- 
ble to Christians, the adop in of principles 
which are radically false ? — Supposing the ad- 
versary were so deficient in perspicacity, as to 
admit the soundness of evidence grounded on 
such principles, — is victory, not truth, to be 
henceforth the object at which the advocate 
of the truth a> k is in Jesus aims ? — And is the 
ancient vitiou> method 01 arguing in its de- 
fence, technically denominated the (Economi- 
cal, to be revived in the nineteenth century? 

There is confessedly something imposing 
in the character of a system of evidence, 
Scorning the aid of human perceptions of right 
and wrong ; spuming the conclusions of rea- 
son regarding things divine ; and denying the 
coniptt< ncy of finite intellect to form any pro- 
bable j ud^ment respecting the character of a 
message from heaven. Nothing can be bet- 
ter calculated to call forth the applause of the 



CONCLUSION. 



187 



vain and superficial part of mankind. — While 
it is unhappily too true, that there is a pride 
of intellect, which contemptuously rejects 
every doctrine thatis in any respect incompre- 
hensible, — which presumptuously dares to 
measure the limits of truth by the line of hu- 
man reason, and scorns all light and support 
from on high ; — it is not less certain, how pa- 
radoxical soever the assertion may appear, 
that there is another sort of intellectual pride, 
the gratification of which is to be accomplish- 
ed by the prostration of reason ; which derides 
as futile the attempt of human intelligence to 
approach the confines of religious science ; 
and which boasts itself of breaking asunder 
those fetters with which human reason and 
human learning would entangle the spirit that 
is in man, and of arriving, under the exclusive 
guidance of supernatural light, at the know- 
ledge and certainty of all things divine. This 
sort of pride is not less common than the o- 
ther ; and it cannot but secure the popularity 
of a system of Christian Evidence, suited not 
indeed in all points to its wildest extravagan- 
cies, but obviously calculated to foster it, in 
other respects. 

To this sort of intellectual pride it must 
prove peculiarly galling to be obliged to be. 



188 



CONCLUSION. 



lieve, that none of all the Christian evidences 
can become conclusive, unless the certainty 
of a few principles of intellectual and moral 
truth, incapable of being otherwise proved 
than by reference to the constitutional per- 
ceptions of the human mind, is acknowledged. 
Every man, however, of sound and unbias- 
sed understanding, who has at all reflected on 
the nature of evidence, is sensible that to such 
perceptions must be ultimately referred every 
judgment which we form : and that there is 
no other foundation for human science, in any 
one of its departments. The amount of evi- 
dence supporting the conclusions of natural 
theology, and the truth of Christianity, is cer- 
tainly as great as that which serves for the sup- 
port of philosophical conclusions that are held 
undoubted ; and which were any man to re- 
ject, he would be deemed incapable of being 
convinced by any means consistent with the 
natural progression of the human understand- 
ing, — No reason exists for scepticism in the 
one case which does not equally justify it in 
the other : nor can any satisfactory cause be 
shewn, why 6 observation' or ' experience' 
should furnish conclusions entitled to com- 
mand conviction, while the moral and intellec- 
tual perceptions formerly referred to, are held 



CONCLUSION, 



189 



unworthy of confidence. 6 Every man,' says 
Bishop Horsley, 6 implicitly trusts his bodily 
c senses concerning external objects placed 
< at a convenient distance ; and every man 
' may with as good a reason put even a great- 
6 er trust in the perceptions of which he is con- 
c scions in his own mind ; which indeed are 
e nothing else than the first notices of truth 
6 and of Himself ] which the Father of our Spi- 
6 rits imparts to subordinate minds, and which 
c are to them the first principles and seeds of 
€ intellect^ 

To the superficial thinker it may seem that 
Christian Evidence, according to the view now 
given of it, rests on principles of so abstruse 
a nature, that great metaphysical acuteness, 
and habits of close reflection, are necessary, 
in order to the perception of its strength and 
conclusiveness : and that such a view of the 
subject is contrary to that given in Scripture, 
which represents the Gospel as intended for 
the reception of the simple no less than of the 
wise. Such an opinion, however, has no foun- 
dation in truth. Abstruse metaphysical inves- 
tigations may become necessary in order to 
shew the fallacy of subtle objections against 
Christian evidence ; while such disquisitions 
are altogether unnecessary in order to enable 

K 



390 CONCLUSION. 



the candid mind to receive conviction from 
the simple exhibition'of the'evidence. An in- 
vestigation of the ultimate principles on which 
evidence is founded, may be abstruse, yet the 
evidence itself may be clear and convincing to 
men of the most ordinary and uncultivated 
powers : just as the illiterate seaman may pro- 
nounce with confidence and with truth, on the 
distance of the land which he descries, and 
on the size of a distant vessel, though utterly 
ignorant of Berkeley's Theory of Vision by 
which the perception of distance is explained, 
and perhaps wholly incapable of understand- 
ing that theory. A man may have the fullest 
confidence in the existence and operation of 
efficient causes, though a stranger to the na- 
ture of the law or principle of belief, by the 
operation of which that confidence is univer- 
sally produced ; and wholly ignorant of the 
method of repelling those objections, to which 
the agitation of questions on the subject of 
causation has given rise. From the manifold 
appearances of intelligence, of wisdom, jus- 
tice, and benignity, which the constitution of 
things exhibits to his view, he may infer with 
the most determined confidence, the intelli- 
gent and moral character of the Being by 
whom that constitution was arranged ; without 



CONCLUSION. 



191 



ever having reflected on the nature of the in- 
tellectual process by which his conclusions 
are attained, and without ever having heard 
of the principles on which the argument from 
final causes proceeds. He may place full re- 
liance on the testimony of a person of high 
moral character, without being in the least 
aware that such reliance has any thing to do 
with the power of reason to infer the existence 
and qualities of invisible causes, from contem- 
plation of their effects. And being a stranger 
to all those speculations, by which sceptics 
have attempted to set aside the conceptions 
which reason suggests regarding the divine 
attributes and administration, he may from 
the exhibition of supernatural phenomena in- 
fer with perfect confidence the truth of doc- 
trines taught by the operator* In short ? placing 
undoubted reliance on the constitutional ex- 
ercise of his reasoning faculties, and the trust- 
worthiness of his mental perceptions, he may 
without any philosophical analysis of princi- 
ples, or any metaphysical investigation of laws 
of belief, estimate accurately the amount of evi- 
dence submitted to him.andpossessascundand 
rational conviction of the truth of Christianity. 
It is only when the principles of Christian 
Evidence are assailed by sceptical objections ; 



192 



CONCLUSION. 



when metaphysical subtilties are employed to 
subvert any part of that evidence; that it be- 
comes proper to enter upon such investiga- 
gations as that in which we have been now 
engaged : and it is only to those who have 
found the conclusions of common sense shaken 
by false reasonings, that such investigations 
are necessary or useful. — We accordingly find 
that our Saviour, who well knew what was in 
man, proposed the evidences on which he 
rested the truth and authority of what he 
taught, in the simplest and shortest manner. 
And although he never declined reasoning on 
the nature of those evidences, when the oc- 
casion required it, — it was only when objec- 
tions were urged, and the validity of the proofs 
he offered was called in question, that he en- 
tered on any discussion of the principles cn 
which the conclusiveness of these proofs is 
founded, * 

* ' In order to obtain a rational conviction of the truth of 

* Christianity, the generality of mankind need not attempt what 

* they are unequal to ; plain evidence is presented to them ; 
4 there is no need of intricate reasoning to enable them to per- 

* ceive it : they are desired only to attend to it ; if they do, 
c they will sustain no loss by not entering into the labyrinths of 

* controversy ; if they be but honest, it will by its own power 
e force their assent.' — ' By readily giving evidence, Christ shews 
1 that was conscious of the truth of his mission, and of his 



CONCLUSION. 



193 



Without any disparagement to the exter- 
nal evidence, the indispensible importance cf 
which is on all hands acknowledged, it may- 
be truly affirmed that the internal evidence is 
in fact peculiarly adapted to produce convic- 
tion in the minds of the generality of men, 
notwithstanding the apparent ahstruseness of 
the principles on which it proceeds. And it 
is one of the most unfortunate aspects, which 
Dr C.'s scheme of Christian Evidence pre- 
sents, that it destroys that species of proof 
which is peculiarly accessible to men of or- 
dinary and uncultivated understandings.* It 

■ power to support it ; and that he desired to support it only by 

* the most legitimate means ; that he sought to bring men to 

* believe, only by a copious and undisguised address to the na- 
4 tural principles of belief. He never of his own accord labour- 
' ed to set off the evidence which he had given. This shewed 
' his sense of the strength of that evidence , it shewed that he 
i understood well in what way the bulk of mankind ought to 
1 be addressed ; it shewed that he was far from the artifice by 
4 which persons of a subtilizing and disputatious turn often con- 
found plain men, and hide the want of evidence from others. 
But whenever the evidence of his mission was called in ques- 
tion, he readily defended it, illustrated it, and frequently too 
made additions to it. This was a new and well placed ex- 
pression of conscious sincerity : it was in this situation that 
reasoning and di-puting became consistent with dignity of 
character.' — G:eb.ard s Dissertations. 

* * This excellence of the Christian doctrine, considered in 
itself, a* without it no external evidence of revelation ccuM 
R 2 



134 



CONCLUSION. 



Is not to be doubted that the faith of a large 
proportion of Christians leans mainly on the 
internal evidence ; — nay it is questionable, 
whether by means of proofs strictly external, 
any other faith could in the absence of all in- 
ternal evidence be produced, than that of 

* be sufficient, so it gives to those who are qualified to perceive it 

* that internal probability to the whole scheme, that the exter- 
' nal evidence, in that proportion of it in which it may be sup- 
' posed to be understood by common men, may well be allowed 
' to complete the proof. This I am persuaded is the considera- 

* tion that chiefly weighs with those who are quite unable tc 

* collect and unite for themselves the scattered parts of that 
' multifarious proof which history and prophecy afford ' — 1 The 

* sense and consciousness of the excellence of the Gospel doc- 
1 trine is an evidence which is felt no doubt in its full force by 

* many a man who can hold no argument about the nature of 

* its certainty ■ — by him who holds the plough or tends the 

* loom, who hath never been sufficiently at lekure from the la- 
1 borious occupations of necessitous life to speculate about moral 

* truth and beauty in the abstract — for a quick discernment 
4 and a truth of taste in religious subjects proceeds not from that 
4 subtilty or refinement of the understanding by which men are 
1 qualified to figure in the arts of rhetoric and disputation but 
' from the moral quali ies of the heart. A devout and honest 

* mind refers the doctrines and precepts of religion to that ex- 
' emplar of the good and fair which it carries about within it- 

* self in its owa feelings : By their agreement with this it un- 

* derstands their excellence : Understanding their excellence, 

* it is disposed to embrace them and to obey them ; and in this 

* disposition listens with candour to the external evident eV— 
Kor sissy's Serm. Vol. HI. 



CONCLUSION. 



195 



those spirits, who in their present unhappy- 
state believe yet tremble. What friend then 
to the Christian cause, can contemplate with- 
out serious alarm, the operation of principles 
avowedly subversive of this main support of 
genuine Christian faith; — principles not ad- 
vanced by an adversary, but by an advocate 
of Christianity ; — not hazarded by an obscure 
individual, or disseminated within a narrow 
circle; but wrought into a systematic Trea- 
tise, bearing the title of 6 Evidence and Au- 
6 thority of the Christian Revelation,' — which 
under the sanction of a popular name, has 
been sent more rapidly into wide circulation, 
than perhaps any work on the subject which 
ever issued from the press ? 

Such are rhe consequences which Dr Chal- 
mers'sspeculations upon this subject, sent forth 
undoubtedly with the best intentions, are ne- 
vertheless calculated to produce. Animated by 
a degree of zeal for religion, which cannot but 
command the respect of even sincere Chris- 
tian, — and possessed of talents and acquire- 
ments which enable him with extraordinary 
success to impress upon the public mind, cer- 
tain subjects of religious and scientific interest, 
—his fervid imagination has, notwithstanding, 
betrayed hun into the adoption of principles^ 



195 



CONCLUSION. 



fraught with serious injury to the cause of ge- 
nuine Christianity, — The union of her eviden- 
ces dissevered, and their co-operative force 
destroyed, — the internal evidence so necessary 
to the production of genuine faith, and by 
which her claims come so powerfully recom- 
mended to every candid and upright mind, 
disclaimed and pronounced fallacious; — the 
moral and theological conclusions which rea- 
son attains, and on which that evidence is built, 
stigmatized as false, nay pernicious to her 
cause; — and her chief external evidences shat- 
tered to their lowest foundations by those very 
means, which were rashly employed to secure 
their stability ; — what stay has Christianity left 
on which she may rest her cause, and what re- 
ply remains for her friends to give, to those 
that ask a reason of the hope that is in them ) 
— When put in balance against such injuries, 
what avail the advantages which the author of 
these speculations contemplates ? Of what 
account is the adaptation of his system to the 
perverted understanding of 6 consistent Athe- 
c ists,' supposing a few such personages to ex- 
ist, and admitting the pretended efficacy of 
the system in such cases ?— Of what conse- 
quence is the right, which his system assumes, 
of repelling objections directed against the 
reasonableness and excellence of Christian 



CONCLUSION. 



197 



doctrines and precepts, by a summary appeal 
on all occasions to the external evidence? — a 
right which, so far from being advantageous, 
could not be exercised without manifest detri- 
ment, even were it established in the fullest 
manner. Supposing such a right completed, 
and exercised,— would Christianity find her 
influence and authority increase, while the 
c skilful officers in her cause' carefully ' en- 
\ trench themselves behind the unsealed barri- 
c er of the historical evidence,' * leaving her 
doctrines and precepts subjected to charges 
of inconsistency with those moral sentiments 
and theological conclusions, which mankind 
by common consent deem trustworthy; and 
the excellence and harmony of her whole sys- 
tem defaced by the foulest aspersions h 

Such was not the ancient mode in which the 
Christian warfare was conducted $ and those 
who have been accustomed to contemplate 
that mode with admiration, and to triumph in 
its recorded success, cannot but view with a- 
lann the total change of tacties proposed by 
this modern leader, f 

* § 141. 

f Kow opposite to the views of Dr C. regarding the proper 
mode of conducting the defence of Christianity, are those appa- 
rently entertained by the writer of the following passage. — 



198 



CONCLUSION. 



Amidst the assaults of foes, and the injudi- 
cious defences of friends possessed of zeal 
without knowIedge 5 — it is consoling to the en- 
lightened friend of Christianity to reflect, 
that its evidences are so combined, — have their 
roots so firmly fixed in the principles of our 
nature, and so interwoven together, that no 
power can tear up one without the others, or 
uproot the whole without subverting the ratio, 
rial and moral constitution of the mind. — If 
principles are advanced, which destroy the 
authority of our rational and moral percep- 

* Anxious as we are to put every tiling that bears upon the Chris- 
1 tian argument into all its lights ; and fearless as we feel for the 

* result of a most^ thorough sifting of it ; and thinking as we do 

* think it, the foulest scorn that any pigmy philosopher of the day 
4 should mince his ambiguous scepticism to a set of giddy and ig- 

* norant admirers, or that a half-learned and superficial public 

* should associate with the Christian priesthood, the blindness 

* and the bigotry of a sinking cause — with these feelings, we are 
4 not disposed to blink a single question that may be started on 

* the subject of the Christian evidences. There is not one of its 
' parts cr bearings which needs the shelter of a disguise thrown 
4 over it. Let the priests of another faith ply their prudential 

* expedients, and look so wise and so wary in the execution of 
4 them. But Christianity stands in a higher and a firmer atti- 

* tude. The defensive armour ©f a shrinking or timid policy doet 
4 not suit her. Ker's is the naked majesty of truth/ &:c Chal- 
mer's Astron. Serrn. III. 



CONCLUSION. 



195 



tkms ; subverting those conclusions regarding 
the existence, character, and administration of 
God, which are legitimately deduced by rea- 
son from these primary perceptions, and from 
observation of nature and its laws ; — -then, in- 
deed it follows, that no evidence can be found 
on which the truth of Christianity may be es- 
tablished. All external evidence holds of 
such perceptions and conclusions, and of con- 
sequence falls with them : and it only remains 
for those who reject their authority, either to 
reject Christianity also, or to rest their con- 
viction of its truth on sensible internal im- 
pulse; acknowledging the impossibility of 
giving any other reason of the hope that is in 
them, than their own assertion of the existence 
of such an impulse. To attempt the produc- 
tion of evidence, is only to contradict them, 
selves. And sceptical speculations of all sorts, 
militating against the soundness of Christian 
evidence in any of its departments, must al- 
ways be characterized by contradictions too 
palpable to escape detection. The injury 
therefore to the Christian cause, of which such 
speculations are productive, never can be per- 
manent. The Christian Revelation, impart- 
ing discoveries of the most important and be- 
neficial nature ; — harmonious in itself ; — in no 



CONCLUSION. 



respect repugnant to right reason, and in all 
its greater features indissolubly connected, 
in the most obvious manner, with the intellec- 
tual and moral perceptions of our nature ; sup- 
ported, moreover, by the strongest and most 
unimpeachable testimony ; — confirmed by mi- 
racles ; and by various collateral evidences of 
an external nature possesses all possible 
characteristics of Divine truth : — and the more 
fully its claims are investigated, will the more 
fully establish its right to command the faith 
and obedience of rational beings. 



THE END. 



Printed by J. Moir, 
Edinburgh, 1818. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: August 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




